Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Coffees from Youngevity

Coffees from Youngevity

Youngevity Be The Change

Youngevity Healthy Chocolate

GOFoods Youngevity

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Ron Paul Forums

Ron Paul Forums

APFN Message Board

APFN Message Board

Leo Emil Wanta / Wantagate Links

++++++++++++++++++ EBAY ITEMS 4 SALE ++++++++++++++++++

« BEATLE RINGO STARR CLAIMS THE “REAL” PAUL MCCARTNEY DIED IN 1966, REPLACED BY LOOK-ALIKE? | Main | Frank Sturgis told NYPD Det. Jim Rothstein on 10-31-77 that he shot John Kennedy »

Rescind All Florida Article V Applications for a Con-Con

I know that a lot of people might not like the John Birch Society, but they are correct in pointing out that a Constitutional Convention could be very bad. 

Note that a Democratic Representative has taken action in the Florida House to help prevent a Con Con.  Maybe if she gets a lot of support for this, she will take action to restore the right to make sure that our votes are counted and the right to trials by juries in all cases where more than a trivial sum is at issue.

See below and take a minute to take action to help preserve what is left of the U.S. Constitution.

Mark A. Adams JD/MBA

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 14:04:14 -0600
Subject: Rescind All Florida Article V Applications for a Con-Con

Rescind All Florida Article V Applications for a Con-Con

On February 26, 2015, State Representative Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda (D-Fla.-9) filed House Memorial 1129, entitled "A memorial to the Congress of the United States, urging Congress to repeal and nullify all existing applications by the Florida Legislature that call for a constitutional convention." Representative Vasilinda recognizes the true danger and threat to our Constitutional Republic posed by a modern-day constitutional convention or "Convention of the States," as it is referred to by many of its supporters. The last time that such a convention was convened was in Philadelphia in 1787 when General George Washington, James Madison, and the various delegates from the thirteen United States assembled to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation and instead gave us what is now our current Constitution.

Although pursuant to Article V of the Constitution, a modern-day convention would not have the luxury of having such enlightened delegates, such as Madison and Washington. Those statesmen present in Philadelphia understood the virtues of liberty and a constitutional republican form of government, but who amongst us comes close to those Founding Fathers?

Like the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, a new constitutional convention would consolidate the inherent powers of a free people, whose right "to alter or abolish" our government is enshrined in the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Because of this inherent right of the sovereign people, an Article V convention cannot be limited, otherwise it would never succeed in empowering the people to make the necessary changes in the Constitution, in case the government should ever become oppressive due to defects in the Constitution.

However, the Constitution is not the problem and neither is Article V the solution; rather the solution is the Constitution. The Constitution should not be amended or rewritten, it should be restored. (Click on graphic at left for a free PDF article download about three reasons to oppose any Article V convention.)

Due to the unlimited nature of the Article V convention process, we should not risk damaging the Constitution through the convening of such a constitutional convention regardless of how appealing the proposed amendment(s) may be. You now have the ability to help preserve the Constitution by helping to convince your state legislators to rescind all of Florida's previous applications for an Article V convention. Send your state representative and senator an email now urging them to support and vote YEA on the passage of HM 1129.

Please also phone and/or visit your state legislators in support of HM 1129. Click here for contact information.


Your Friends at The John Birch Society


I believe that you are on the wrong side of this issue. Allow me to help.  :-)
Things are not going to get better. The people who are trying to pay attention do not believe that things are out of control. They believe one or 2 election cycles can repair the problems. I think you and I agree that the situation is far worse. I will not argue the benefits of a CoS if it goes right, that is obvious. I will argue that if it goes wrong that it would probably be the wakeup call that is desperately needed. Tinkering with the"unalienable" would be suicide and that might not be figurative. At least the veil is off, and 5 or 10% more people will know what the hell we are talking about. 
Our efforts are better spent trying to make a CoS make sense. 
 How about state governors elect POTUS jurists? 
How about repealing the 17th amendment (among others)?
How about reducing the number the represented in the House to about 150k, physically seat them in their state capitals and do the whole thing over network? Can't buy them all.  Why bother gerrymandering a district?
Mark, you make points about securing liberty there must be a way for your concerns, that I barely understand, can be addressed. Ditch the dem that wants to rescind, find the people that are making this happen. JSB is right, the constitution is the solution.  Lets make it so that the ignoring the constitution is just that obvious. 
Ed Coyle

As you notice, the masses are clueless, and even those who are searching for answers are mostly clueless.  For example, almost no one understands how liberty and justice are supposed to be secured, and this explains why so many still support obvious opposition control groups like C4L, FreedomWorks, AFP, etc., which never mention that any fundamental right has been stolen.

Even worse, the people have been trained to believe that government intervention in more areas is the answer to all ills.

As a result, a Constitutional Convention would be nothing more than a disaster, but I doubt that it would be enough of an obvious theft that the people would rise up.  People don't do that unless they are very hungry or are attacked.  Even when FDR plunged America into the Great Depression just after he took office in 1933 by closing banks, outlawing the possession of gold coins and bullion, and dramatically devaluing the dollar, the people did not rise up.  Many were pissed, and some even engaged in attacks on those who took advantage of the crash that FDR and the FED banksters engineered by burning and robbing banks.  

However, the masses got just enough to get by and were just clueless and confused enough to not understand who had really caused their suffering, and as a result, there was no revolution.  Nor did the masses do anything when FDR stole the right to trials by juries in civil actions in 1938 nor did the masses do anything in 1944 when they were deprived of the right to petition for a redress of grievances for criminal acts by presenting evidence to the citizens serving on the Federal grand juries.  Moreover, when similar rules were passed stealing those fundamental rights in state courts, no one mounted an effective resistance.

During the time when the fascist bankster scum were impoverishing Americans to enrich themselves and stealing fundamental rights in order to empower themselves and subjugate Americans under their rule, the people did nothing.  Plus, I would guess that even though the fascist scum controlled the "news" and "educational" systems then, the people were probably more aware of these rights, but still, they did not put up enough of a fight to stop the theft of the very rights which the Founders complained about being taken by Britain in the Declaration of Independence.

Now, people are far more clueless and distracted than in the 1930s, and unlike then, most Americans do not know how to hunt and kill.  Therefore, almost anything could happen at a Con Con, and it is highly unlikely that anyone would do anything about it.  After all, the bankster scum just got anyway with crashing the value of residential real estate, stealing the homes of over 50,000,000 Americans, raiding the treasury to bail them out, committing widespread fraud (called robo-siging by the "news" instead of fraud) and got their puppets in DC to pay them to steal homes.  See

In spite of all of that misery that the bankster scumbags just got away with, the masses have done almost nothing, and the couple of times that a few tried to start something to bring about reform, the Ron Paul inspired Tea Party movement and Occupy, the SIC (Scum in Charge) were able to simply takeover the Tea Party and change its goals from ending the wars, ending the FED and restoring civil rights to stopping Muslims from taking over America, stopping terrorists (financed and trained by the SIC) and yammering about how the dollar is going to crash which was exactly what the banksters wanted.  Recall  the engineered crash that I mentioned that FDR caused.  The banksters have their puppets do that every decade or so to pick up assets for pennies on the dollar.  While with Occupy, the SIC simply mischaracterized them as communists and bums and showed them that the 1st Amendment right of freedom of assembly had also been rendered meaningless. By the way, Occupy demonstrated that people believe that rights simply exist, but don't realize that without the means to enforce your rights, you have no rights.

Anyway, the best thing that anyone could do right now is resist a Con Con, and of course, for every person who does, there will be someone who thinks that it would be great and 100 people who have no idea that anyone is even talking about such a thing.

Mark A. Adams JD/MBA

P.S. Merry Christmas to the SIC because I just analyzed the situation for you, but hopefully, Ed is right and the people will rise up if you try to take away the rights which are supposed to be secured by the Constitution.

Subject: RE: [ronpaul-48] Rescind All Florida Article V Applications for a Con-Con
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 22:38:06 -0500
Hey Mark,
It does appear that C4L and such are opposition control groups but I think that it might be because of the cluelessness we already talked about. There is no doubt that opponents of Liberty will try to hijack an article V convention. We have several things going in our favor. 
1) This thing is a long way from happening.  2/3rds of the states need call for [it and] 3/4ths need to ratify the amendments that come out of the convention (as I understand). This will make hijacking very difficult. 
2) If Republicans can convincingly show themselves as the party of opposition and continue to challenge RINO's in primaries they will again have huge gains in state legislatures again in 2016 or at least maintain the control they now have, which is substantial.
3) Public opinion is coming around to the libertarian view. Rand has been doing nicely in the polls.  No one should expect a junior senator from Kentucky to be leading any polls. When Iowa and NH comes around he will have plenty of money [and] will be seen as a viable candidate by many. Anticipate 8 years of President Paul with an article V convention taking place during his term. 
I don't think the odds get better than that. 
What specifically would you like to see happen if a CoS were to take place?
I am trying to get active in this and would appreciate your input.

-------- Original message --------
From: "Mark A. Adams, JD/MBA"
Date:03/05/2015 2:57 PM (GMT-05:00)
Late in viewing my email.  Here is more on the Con-Con, Article V, CoS, not accumulated from JBS.  Call it what you like, it is all nefarious.
Please consider very carefully, those who wish to bring about the above and look deeply into their character and connections, they are no friend to Liberty.
The Danger of a Constitutional Convention  including testimony from TODAY'S HEARING
The Constitutional convention is a conspiracy to destroy our republic: nothing more and nothing less.
Subterfuge: Call it "Convention of the States" instead of Constitutional Convention, and claim that these are not the same thing. BUT at THE SAME TIME make it a call that is derived from Article V.
Article V is about a Constitutional Convention.
They are calling for an Article V Constitutional Convention, pure and simple, and nothing else.
AT THE SAME TIME, claim that all of the states that called for a Constitutional Convention, count in their tally.
If what they are calling for now, is not the same thing, why would these other calls for a Constitutional Convention, count in their tally?
The real question about Constitutional Convention is this:

Do we need to give the power to write a new constitution to the very people who have been ignoring, usurping, and trying to destroy the constitution that we have now?

The video below is made specifically for state legislators, by a state legislator.
Constitutional Convention is explained.  
Beware Article V
Beware Article V (part 1 of 4)
Beware Article V (part 2 of 4)
Beware Article V (part 3 of 4)
A Constitutional Convention is not a procedure for making a small change.
A Constitutional Convention is not a procedure for enforcing an existing law.
A Constitutional Convention is a procedure for giving us an ENTIRELY NEW Constitution.
THERE IS NO WAY TO "LIMIT" a Constitutional Convention TO ONE ISSUE.
If you want one amendment, then you present an amendment.
You do not put the ENTIRE Constitution at risk for one amendment.
The only reason that Constitutional Convention is being promoted as the solution TO JUST ONE problem, is that the hidden agenda would be considered to be outrageous.
Unbelievably, one outlandish argument for writing a new constitution, is the fact that government has ignored the constitution that we have. We are supposed to assume that the government could not possibly ignore any newly written constitution.
If government ignores the constitution, and usurps power now, what would the government do if we let them write a new constitution? 
Maybe then the government would stop ignoring the constitution, and usurping power, because then they would have a new constitution that they do not need to ignore. That would be because that new constitution says that the government has all the power that there is.
A Constitutional Convention is not a procedure for enforcing existing law. If the problem is the ignoring of the constitution then ignoring of the constitution is what needs to be fixed.
What would you do if a physician suggested a heart transplant because you have an upset stomach? 
What would you do if a mechanic said to replace the motor when your car is simply out of gas?
These arguments are so stupid that we have to wonder if this is something more sinister than mere stupidity.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING as a Constitutional Convention "for a balanced budget".
THERE IS NO SUCH THING as a Constitutional Convention "to return power to the states."
THERE IS NO SUCH THING as a Constitutional Convention "to stop illegal aliens."
THERE IS NO SUCH THING as a Constitutional Convention "to restore the right to keep and bear arms".
THERE IS NO SUCH THING as a Constitutional Convention "to limit terms".
THERE IS only one kind of Constitutional Convention.
THE only kind of Constitutional Convention; that can be convened is a Constitutional Convention to write a new Constitution.
A Constitutional Convention is a legislative body;
which operates ABOVE the limitations of the Constitution.
This makes it more powerful, and MORE DANGEROUS, than any other legislative body.
This is not an opinion, but it if a fact of law.
A Constitutional Convention is a means of DESTROYING the American Republic. A Constitutional Convention is opening a "Pandora's box" for RADICAL change. Once the "genie is out of the bottle" no one can control it.
The last time that we had a Constitutional Convention was in 1787, when we got the Constitution that we now have.
That Constitutional Convention was convened to make some small changes in the Articles of Confederation. Instead we got a new Constitution.
We were LUCKY that time.
Those who were at that Constitutional Convention were the leaders of a freedom movement; which had just defeated a tyranny.
There is a claim that we would be safe because our current constitution says that ratification would be required by three fourths of the states. What if the new constitution does not say that?
The last time that we had a constitutional convention one of the first things that they did was change the rules for ratification that were in place under the Articles of Confederation. That is why ratification now requires three fourths of the states.
So here is the only precedent that we have for a constitutional convention:
They initially met to make a few limited changes in the Articles of Confederation. 
Then they threw out the Articles of Confederation and started over. They included changing the rules for ratification.
Now we are being told that the only thing that has ever happened previously, is what cannot happen!
Go down to your State House and talk with your current elected officials. Can you consistently pass legislation that protects you from unconstitutional usurpation now? What is to stop them from again throwing the whole thing out, and again changing the rules for ratification?
Our problem has NOTHING to do with the constitution.
Our problem has to do with the IGNORING OF THE constitution.
Those who ignore the constitution would like nothing better than to make their usurpation legal, by throwing out the constitution, at a Constitutional Convention.
It was ILLEGAL usurpation that has enabled an "elite" class to hijack our nation.
It is that "elite" class; who want to con foolish people into destroying the constitution.
The constitution is the best document for the protection of freedom, that has ever been written.
We only need to adhere to it.
The act of calling for a Constitutional Convention will be presented as permission of the people. This is not a theory about their plans. It comes from their actual statements:

Here is what they have to say:

"The framers of the U.S. constitution have simply been too shrewd for us. They have outwitted us. They designed separate institutions that cannot be unified by mechanical linkages, frail bridges, tinkering. If we are to ‘turn the Founders upside down’ — we must directly confront the constitutional structure they erected." (a quote from "The Power to Lead," by James McGregor Burns, 1984, one of many promoting one world government.)

Reforming American Government: The Bicentennial Papers of the Committee on the Constitutional System (Paperback) ~ Donald Robinson 

In this book, those who want to destroy that American constitution train their followers. But  we can read it too. 

YES, The Founding Fathers saw a possibility of a situation,
where a need might arise for COMPLETELY SCRAPING THE CONSTITUTION.
That is not what has happened TODAY.
The only thing that has happened is that there is now a cabal of would be tyrants;
who are getting tired of OCCASIONALLY having to adhere to the constitution.  
These would be tyrants would like to con enough ignorant people into letting them DESTROY THE CONSTITUTION,
so that they can usher in totalitarianism.
Having a Constitutional Convention would be like letting your worst enemy give you a heart and lung transplant, and a castration, as a cure for hiccups.
Having a Constitutional Convention would be like burning the house down as a means of accomplishing pest control.
Article V of The Constitution lays out the only two ways to change The Constitution:
1.  The Amendment process: A specific, and clearly defined, change that is limited to what is written in the amendment.
2.  The Constitutional Convention: A process to scrap the entire constitution and replace it with something else. ANY type of amendment can be considered.
The Constitution of the United States of America:
Here is a clear statement of the difference between the effect of The Amendment process and calling for a Constitutional Convention:
"If you have the best automobile in the world, you don't throw it away if the carburetor is not working. You fix it," he said. "The same is true of the Constitution. That's what the amendment process is all about."
                          U.S. Supreme Court Chief
                          Justice Warren E. Burger,
                          Boston Globe, August 21, 1987
We understand that there are those who want to destroy the American constitution. We also understand that it would be foolish for those thugs to admit that it is their goal to destroy the American constitution. It would be much more clever if those thugs were to claim that they only wanted to make a few small changes. Of course, if it was true that they only wanted to make a few small changes, then they would not need a Constitutional Convention. They would simply propose those amendments.
Next time you are in your bank try this:
Tell them to go home over night with the all of the doors and the vault, unlocked and standing wide open, BUT to put a sign on the door saying that no one is allowed to steal the money.
What they tell you will give you a good understanding of the meaning of a "limited constitutional convention".
Imagine this scenario:
You wake up in the middle of the night to a noise in your living room.
You grab your gun, and you find two thugs loading bags full of valuables.
You hold the gun at the ready.
One of the thugs says:
"Now that is a really fine gun. But you really need to clean it. Why not hand it over to me, and I will clean it for you."
The other thug says
"Oh there is nothing to worry about. If you do not like the way he uses the gun then of course you can insist that he give it back!" 
You would say "How stupid do you think I am?"
If someone suggested handing over your gun to a mugger, after instructing him on all the rules that he must follow after he gets your gun, wouldn't you question his motives? It is not rocket science. 
When we see someone asking us to hand over the gun of a constitutional convention, we must conclude that he is one of two things:
    1. He is an unbelievably stupid fool
    2. He is a thug, with an ulterior motive, who thinks that the WE are unbelievably stupid.
Does it really matter what reason the thug gives for why he says that you should give him your gun? Do we not understand that when the thug has the gun he will be making his own rules?
There is a limit to the amount of time for which it is possible to assume that this is an unbelievably stupid suggestion, being made because of mere stupidity. Eventually it will become clear that we are dealing with a thug, with an ulterior motive, who thinks that the WE are unbelievably stupid. 
IT WILL BE JUST AS EASY to ignore a new constitution as it is to ignore the one that we have now.
IT just will NOT BE NECESSARY to ignore a new constitution,
since it will say what the New World Order wants it to say.
The problem is not what the constitution SAYS.
The problem is what OUR GOVERNMENT DOES.
We need to change what OUR GOVERNMENT DOES.
We do not need to change what the constitution SAYS, other than repealing the 14th, 16th and the 17th amendments.
Constitutional Convention is perceived as a means of restoring power to the states. Yet it is possible to achieve this without writing a new constitution.
Judge Napolitano talks about the power of the States to nullify the Fed 

Constitutional Journal: A Correspondent's Report from the Convention of 1787 (Hardcover)  by Jeffrey St. John (Author), Warren E. Burger (Foreword) 

We Hold These Truths: A Reverent Review of the U. S. Constitution 1993 Revised Edition (Paperback) byCongressman Lawrence P. McDonald  




After a Constitutional Convention these will be our new founding fathers:

B. Hussein Obama Sotoro (or whatever his name is)
Rahm Emanuel
Harry Reid
Nancy Pelosi
Chuck Schumer
Diane Feinstein
Barbra Boxer
Maxine Waters
Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a founder of the ACLU
Sonia Sotomayor, the wise Latina
Elena Kagen
Jesse Jackson
Al Sharpton

God help us...


Thomas Jefferson said:
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
We add this:
"The battle for liberty is never won, and is never lost.
The battle for liberty always continues.
It is never too late, and it is never soon enough, to defend freedom.
No matter how enslaved we are, we always have hope. 
No matter how free we are we are never safe.
Any generation that fails to defend freedom will lose it.
The next generation will have to shed blood to gain it back.
When the defense of liberty becomes a crime, tyranny is already in force. At that point failure to defend liberty makes slavery a certainty." 
John Perna


From: Edward
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 1:10 AM
Subject: RE: [ronpaul-48] RE: Rescind All Florida Article V Applications for a Con-Con



03/07/15 12:38 PM

To the Honorable Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda;

Regarding House Memorial 1129

I certainly agree that an Article V Con Con is a VERY BAD IDEA. 

I am confused, however, by the language of HM 1129.  

It seems to me that this HM is asking the US Congress to cancel or nullify an application which was apparently initiated by the FL legislature.
(otherwise....why would it need to be cancelled?)

That seems to me to be upside down, backwards and absurd. 

If Florida made the application to begin would seem to me that only Florida has the power to withdraw, cancel or rescind it.

It would make a lot more sense to me if it said something like:

"The State of Florida hereby DECLARES, and gives NOTICE to The United States of America that ANY and ALL applications THE STATE OF FLORIDA has (or may have) made to Congress requesting an ART V Convention, including but not limited to:



And should be published in a Newspaper of Record a sufficient number of times to satisfy the requirements of LEGAL NOTICE....
and transmitted by certified mail (with return receipt) to at the very least, the clerks of both the US House and US Senate. 

Asking Congress to nullify an Act (the application) of the FL Legislature seems to me to be utterly inappropriate, ridiculous and is likely to have no effect whatsoever.  

I would like to have your response to my concerns. 

Best Regards,
Xxxxxx Xxxxx

CC:  John Birch Society





From: [mailto:ronpaul-48@meetup.comOn Behalf Of Mark A. Adams, JD/MBA
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 8:44 PM


Mark A. Adams, JD/MBA via 

1:13 PM (46 minutes ago)
to ronpaul-48
Excellent point, Jake.


March 4, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink