Once a Conservative Southern Town, now Spartanburg is in Need of a Real TeaParty

Spartanburg looks like a sleepy little town. There are few controversies here (unless I start them), and you would not expect to find a swamp where there are so few outward signs of disagreement between the people and its leaders. In other words, the people are pretty compliant.

Perhaps Spartanburg’s history as a textile town helps explain the complacency here. Reading histories of the town, supplemented by histories of the South, one learns that education has always been strongly encouraged, along with the Christian faith.  Prior to the 1920’s, there was never a great deal of wealth; there were no plantations and yeoman farmers were the rule. However, the advent of the textile mills, coming as they did with paternalistic villages, had an effect on public outspokenness. Without a strong middle class, vigorous citizen participation seems to have been replaced by the more passive tendency to keep one’s opinions to oneself.

In the past, the newspaper published opinion pieces by local residents, myself among them,  but feedback was rare, even when the paper ran pro and con debates on questions of public interest. In recent years, the paper has not published anything of mine longer than a letter. This may be due to a 2015 OpEd that  I wrote about the efforts of local churches to influence government officials, the chamber of commerce, and school districts to work with World Relief, (a non-government organization aka NGO) to welcome former refugees from U.N. camps, mostly in Africa and the Middle East and for which this NGO, receives $1900 per capita while the federal government pays transportation and initial costs.

Settling the ex-refugees involves signing them up for all public assistance programs (they go to the top of every waiting list), helping them to get jobs, and finding churches to adopt them find housing, furniture, clothing, jobs and other necessities.

Under the Obama Administration, the goal of the program was to “welcome new Americans, ” not to assimilate, but to rise to the top of their own communities within communities, and once there are 350 of these, to help them form their own nation within a nation.

At the time, I did not know very much about World Relief, the tireless blogger, Ann Corcoran (see RefugeeResettlementblog.wordpress.com), or the part churches play in facilitating the new Babel – moving people all over the world to settle them permanently in far away locations.  I could only point out some of the pitfalls of a program that transforms neighborhoods and whole cities without any input from ordinary residents. I noted the problems now facing Lewiston, Maine, a town similar to Spartanburg in that it is a former textile town, where the resettlement program has been going on for years, assimilation has not happened, welfare costs have soared, education has suffered and taxes have increased. I suggested the program would be expensive (SC was late to this party so it has only spent between 600 and 700 million dollars to resettle refugees.

In my letter, I called for community input into any plans to pursue such a program; this is actually required by law in every community, every year programs like World Relief operate in our cities; but it is interpreted as only requiring World Relief, etc., to talk to “stakeholders,” most of whom derive benefits either for themselves, their organizations, or their businesses from these programs. The paper published my letter and the online version generated scores of local comments, 90% favorable to my opinion. I’d never seen so much online feedback for a local article. In fact, the paper got so many complaints about the Refugee Resettlement Program, that it cut off the comments after a few days.

Spartanburg is not DC, which is a big swamp, but Spartanburg does appear to be progressing in the direction of a little swamp. The city fathers are not well-paid, but dollars are not the coin of the government realm – that coin comes in the form of influence and influence increases as government personnel have more and more money.   Oligarchs never consult the people, but wise oligarchs pretend to do so. Thus the newspaper at that time was wiser than the government.

Our government oligarchs are particularly unwise as they do not even pretend to care what ordinary people think, even when the majority of people are intelligent and have good opinions. Here are some recent examples of oligarchical behavior by the city and county councils of Spartanburg, SC.

In 2013, after numerous meetings and 4,000 signed petitions (in a city of 30,000 souls), the inner city school district allowed the city, which was administering the district’s beautiful, well-built mid-80’s indoor pool, (paid for by a grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) to break their lease with the city that required the city to maintain and manage the pool, and instead, close it, blow it up, and bury it. The official reasons given for destroying The Spartanburg Swim Center were to save the city $500,000 per year in operating costs (although the pool had been run as an inexpensive amenity for years and a big part of the cost was the summer program that served the children in public housing near the pool every summer )  and to avoid “huge” repair expenses, which turned out to be only $10,000 to replace the pool lining and refill the pool.

How do I know how much it was going to cost to put the pool back into commission?  I invited an entrepreneur from Greenville who already owned and managed several pools to come look at it and tell me how much it would cost to get it back into commission. He said it did not require anything, but if he could buy it, he would replace the liner just because the pool was already empty, and the liner was getting some age on it and within a few years would need replacing;  he said he would also replace the glass windows because they had become dull over time. He offered to buy the pool and promised he could allocate time for public use, and still make a profit.  He figured it would take less than a week to get the pool up and running.

A citizen “Save Our Pool” committee proposed a plan that could have saved the pool, but no one in public office in the county wanted it saved.  The City Manager actually said all of the resources available had to go to the Northside of Spartanburg because modern city management does not spread money around cities but concentrates it in one part. Hmmmm, if true, things have sure changed since I studied government planning in graduate school

Now, just three years later, the city wants to spend many millions of dollars to build a new pool on the north side of the city, between two excellent colleges. To make room for their dream community, the oligarchs have moved out the poor and replaced their homes. I guess you might call it “urban renewal.” The goal appears to be a community composed of college faculty, students, and newly re-settled former refugees.

The area where the pool used to be is in the dead center of the city, convenient to all and close to the projects, making it convenient for even poor kids to get to swimming lessons and summer programs at the pool. For now, at least, there is no indoor pool, nor a comparable outdoor public pool. If the Northside pool gets built, it will probably not be used for summer programs for kids in the projects and the high percentage of swimmers that Spartanburg has now, will decline. The current estimate for a new pool is $16,000,000. City officials say they will get a grant to pay for it.

Because the city has a mold problem in one of its government buildings (due to the unwise purchase of a commercial building some years ago that had existing water problems), taxpayers are going to have to pay for five new government facilities. For years government officials have complained about the lack of a good tax base in the city because most prime real estate is occupied by nonprofits. No one has given a good reason why some or all of the new government buildings cannot be built outside of the downtown, like Greenville has done. This especially makes sense for buildings that are supposed to house county, or city and county functions. However, we have been told that lawyers, who like to walk to work, might be inconvenienced or maybe because cheaper costs might mean less money for the oligarchs to spend.

Business taxes and start-up costs are high in Spartanburg, both in time and money, and that is probably the main reason we have relatively few businesses downtown. New businesses have to deal with a superfluity of taxes and regulations and with a scarcity of locations. Just recently the city proposed giving away seven acres of land between a park and a hotel to a company from Florida planning to build “luxury apartments.” The company only needed 2 acres, but our generous city council gave them seven.

In 2015,  Spartanburg High had a leaky roof and a new high school seems to be the only solution considered. It was not hard to convince students that they also needed their own $50 million dollar stadium ($50 million plus tens of thousands annually to maintain it). Currently the district rents Wofford College’s Division I stadium just about four miles away from Spartan High.  Wofford charges enough to cover maintenance and personnel for the Friday-night home games, and makes the high school students welcome; it certainly doesn’t make money, but contra statements by district officials, Wofford never suggested ending the relationship. The school district decided to borrow $185 million and raise taxes to fund the building of a new high school, a football field, renovating the old high school to accommodate the middle school, tearing down two elementary schools, and building a new, two-story elementary school to accommodate the 600-800 students displaced from the two schools that are closing.

The inner city is not growing and the push to build new buildings seems over-wrought and unnecessary to this pro-education observer and to most of the people here who understand the facts, and not the propaganda. Absent a very few letters to the editor, there was no balanced public discussion about the need for the additional property tax to fund the new school buildings. Those in opposition were painted as anti-education, including myself, a life-long educator, wife of an educator, daughter of an educator and the mother of an educator.

When a public forum was announced for the week before the referendum that was scheduled for March 16, 2016 (when nothing else was on the ballot), I noticed there was no one on the panel opposed to the tax increase, and volunteered to represent another viewpoint.  The editor of the local paper was the moderator, but he did not moderate. He allowed a state representative to accuse me of racism for not campaigning in the black churches like the Superintendent had been doing for over a year. Over a year?  That was news to me. We only learned about the planned referendum a couple of months before the special election date— and campaigning in churches? It actually never occurred to me to go to churches to campaign. The forum was anything but balanced.

But hey, these are mostly just money and trust issues unless you count the personal cost many disabled people have faced losing their warm therapy pool, the break-up of the multi-generational, multi-racial, diverse group of people who had formed a great, natural community at the pool, swimming or exercising daily from 8 to 10 a.m., or the discomfort of the high school swim team which now swims outside into October, even though it was one of the specific groups for which the school district originally requested HUD grant money for a pool. Interestingly, only one of the scores of parents of the swimmers who are now swimming outdoors, showed up to voice opposition to tearing down the pool, but hundreds of other people did.

Also affected by the closing of the pool were fire fighters, police, ROTC cadets, scuba divers, swim teams, scouts, and future life guards, all of which used to train at the Swim Center, and of course the parents of children who depended on the summer pool programs that entertained their kids every day of the summer for $1.00 or $2.00 per day, and the minority population that was displaced from their homes and in some cases from their jobs by the Northside project and the influx of migrants seeking low wage jobs. Finally, the school district is spending money on bricks and mortar instead of on real education – and that’s another big loss.

But worse than these gross mis-steps are the resolutions the city of Spartanburg recently adopted at a city council meeting. These were drawn up and read by the City Manager and in the name of the Mayor (who was absent): 1) “Affirming the City of Spartanburg’s Commitment to Encourage All Residents, Civic Institutions, Businesses and Partners to Promote Policies and Practices to Support a Neighborly Community,” (which the city manager made clear in was another way of announcing a desire to be a Sanctuary City) and 2) “In Support of Extension of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Program and Permanent Legal Status for Dreamers.”

Fortunately we are getting a new council member, Max Hyde – a very smart, conservative lawyer, but if he remains true to his beliefs, he will be vastly outnumbered. In the hope that we citizens can help, the old Boiling Springs Tea Party, has been newly recommissioned as the “Real Spartanburg Tea Party” and will be there to encourage our new councilman and to hold our representatives accountable. Spartanburg has had two tea parties, the Boiling Springs Tea Party established in February, 2009, and the Spartanburg Tea Party established in the summer or fall of the same year.  The Spartanburg Tea Party has now lost its leadership. The leader has reinvented herself as a paid GOP consultant and helped rally support for the two huge tax increases mentioned above.  Worse, she helped elect a Republican County Chairman who joined with her and the Chamber of Commerce in promoting the latest tax increase. (Full disclosure, I was once a chamber of commerce employee – back in the days when it existed to help small businesses as well as large corporations.)

The Real Spartanburg Tea Party is going to have its first meeting this coming Wednesday. We’ll discuss the issues we want to work on initially – Smart Meters, DACA, Sanctuary Cities, taxes, and Common Core are all on the list, but that’s just my list; I want to know what you are interested in. Please come and help us. Since I only live in one city, I do not know if my city is unusual, but I am fairly confidant it is not. I am guessing our city manager goes to city manager meetings and gets ideas to bring back to Spartanburg.

If you live in another city, please tell me what’s happening in your city.

What does the Constitutional clause “natural born Citizen” really mean?

Inquiring minds want to know, including mine so I have been studying this question for over a year. Wishing to have something published so I could talk about it on a very interesting radio show dedicated to this kind of question, I found this article from last year. Of course I couldn’t resist editing it a little, so it’s been updated. A much longer version will be ready soon. Watch this site.

   Who is a Natural Born Citizen?

April 24, 2016

March 11, 2015, The Harvard Law Review Forum, published a Commentary by Harvard law graduate, Paul Clement, former Solicitor General in the George W. Bush Administration and Yale law graduate, Neal Katyal, former Acting Solicitor General in the Obama administration.(Paul Clement and Neal Katyal, (http://harvardlawreview.org/authors/neal-katyal/.) Retrieved April 24, 2016.)

Their commentary was treated by the Washington Post and other media outlets as the authoritative bi-partisan final word on this question, retrieved April 24, 2016). The case was closed. No one needed to say anything else. But is the case really closed? Katyal and Clement use British common law to argue that anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen.

The sarcastic me wants to say, “They couldn’t be more wrong, as those born by Caesarian section are hardly “Naturally Born.” But sarcasm is not necessary to show they are wrong; a few facts will suffice. The British empire claimed as a subject, every baby born in the Empire (and if male, available for service in the King’s Navy – remember the War of 1812?) However, unlike American citizens, all British subjects, back then, did not have the same rights. All British citizens were not equal. In fact, we fought a war for Independence from a Parliament that did not represent us as equal citizens; remember, “No taxation without representation?”

We now have our own WRITTEN law based on the U.S. Constitution, and every citizen has the same rights under it, with one small exception, if one considers being President a right. (It’s really more of a job qualification.)

We fought another war after Chief Justice Roger Taney declared that the Constitution was written only for white men. Prior to the Dred Scott decision, most Americans believed the Constitution was written to fulfill the Declaration of Independence’s “All men are created equal….”

When civics was required in schools, students learned by 9th grade, that a “naturalized citizen” is not the same as “a natural born citizen.” The former is naturalized based on laws passed by Congress pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 4. While these babies are citizens from birth, they are not eligible under the strict requirements of Article II to be President of the United States, at least not if we follow the Founders intentions. The reason for this “job requirement” is simple: our Founders feared foreign influence upon the office of the President and Commander-in-Chief. (Not in the 2016 version of this article – but I cannot resist adding here – that there may not be any Russian collusion this time, but the idea that foreign intervention is possible is obviously not a ridiculous one.

Should the President have a parent with dual loyalties, the President himself might also eligible for citizenship in that parent’s home country, just the same as children born abroad to U.S. citizens are. Does that mean he might be less loyal to his native country?

Globalists say borders don’t matter anymore. But most Americans think it’s quite a risk to allow someone who holds the nuclear football, the keys to America’s national security and the well-being of American citizens to also have ties to another country. Ergo, the Founders also believed that simply being born an American is necessary but not sufficient for the President of the United States. Both of the Presidents’ parents have to be citizens (being naturally born citizens is not necessary for them), but the Presidents themselves, must meet three strict requirements; be naturally born citizens, 14 years of resident in the United States and 35 years of age. About the time we stopped teaching civics in a serious way, the federal bureaucracy began handing out passports to anyone born on U.S. soil and birth certificates began to list all U.S. born babies as citizens. As a result of both these developments, people are easily confused. However, these practices do not change the Constitution; it can only be changed constitutionally by amendment pursuant to Article V.

The Constitution was designed for the people, not just for lawyers such as Clement and Katyal. It is only 4,400 words long, easily read and easily understood. While I do not have a law degree, I do have a PHD and I have been teaching the Constitution to students of all ages, from five to eighty-five for the last 30 years. When lawyers teach Constitutional Law, they focus on case law (and often never read the Constitution in class); when historians and political scientists such as myself, teach it, we focus on the words of the actual Constitution. Big difference. As a student of history and a professor, I have spent a great deal of time reading original documents. I suggest Katyal and Clement read more closely at least one of those documents, to wit, the U.S. Constitution

Dorthy A. Reese,M.D, Great Doc, RIP

The best doctor I ever had for my children passed away unbeknownst to me.

Dr. Dorthy Reese was my pediatrician when I was a graduate student in Tuscaloosa from 1969, until she moved her practice to North Carolina. She took care of my three small children like they were her own and when an obstetrician removed too much foreskin from my newborn son, I thought Dr. Reese was going to physically assault that doctor, she was that mad!

She said she would testify against him in court if the wound did not heal right!

I will never forget what she said when a drug she needed (gamma globulin, I think) to treat measles in children (this was before the vaccine) was not available because the health department was using most of the available supplies to treat STD’s in homosexual males: “I would let them have one treatment, and after that, I’d cut it off.”

Students were charged outrageously low fees and when we thought we had an after-hours emergency, she would tell us to meet her at the hospital, but not to sign in. That was so we would not have to pay for a hospital visit it turned out to be unnecessary – and it usually was. No other doctor I have ever known (and I went on to have two more children) ever did this, but maybe they couldn’t.  Since Medicare and Medicaid, medicine has become more and more controlled by hospitals, insurance companies, etc., then it was in our days in Tuscaloosa – and not for the better, in my humble opinion. I really miss old fashioned, independent docs, like Dorthy A. Reese!

When the government told her she had to charge everyone the same, she packed up and moved to Tennessee. We were crushed, but admired her independence. What a great lady, what a great doctor, I am sorry I did not know she passed away; I would have gone to her funeral. I regret I did not.

Dorthy Reese, old school feminist, fighter for mothers and children, impervious to the opinions of her “colleagues” if they disagree with what she thought best for her patients, lover of children, fearless defender, God-send to poor parents, and our friend. May the Lord grant her eternal rest, and may we meet again where there is no more illness, weeping or regrets.

 

 

Peter Augustine Lawler, RIP

In the 90’s, when we were living in Georgia, my little family enjoyed constant contact with Peter, Rita, and Catherine Lawler. The Lawlers met in graduate school at UVA, where they studied political science and their daughter was between our daughters in age. We met at the Georgia Political Science Convention in Savannah and just clicked!

Peter gave talks for me at Kennesaw State University, mentored me as a professor and wrote a fabulous letter recommending me for tenure. As an ISI professor (Intercollegiate Studies Association), he mentored our daughter and wrote letters for her as well, and he did not leave out Rob – for a while they met weekly to discuss Rob’s writing. We were very fortunate to have him for a friend.

Peter lectured across the nation, wrote numerous blogs, articles, and 15 books. He was appointed by George W. Bush to the President’s Council on Bio-Ethics and was named the George Washington Distinguished Professor of the American Founding, The Society of the Cincinnati, among a host of other worthy activities and well-deserved honors.

Of the four of us adults, Peter was the youngest – only 65 when he passed away last Tuesday. We attended the funeral yesterday and I have never been to a more crowded Mass, except on Easter or Christmas, definitely the most crowded funeral Mass. It was at St. Mary’s in Rome (not THAT Rome), in Georgia. I think every lawyer he taught as undergraduates at Berry College was there and they were weeping! He was a much loved Professor and he never let his work come between him and a friend or a student. His famously messy desk testifies to his people over process approach to life. I hope one of his better students will take on the task of archiving the contents of his desk with the rest of his papers.

My husband has a wonderful reflection about Peter at AmGreatness.com (https://amgreatness.com/2017/05/24/peter-augustine-lawler-memoriam/).

The death was such a surprise and the funeral was held so quickly, that his many friends in places remote, were unable to make it but I did see: Professors Carl Scott and Ralph Hancock from Unesstah; Professors Dan Mahoney and Marc Guerra from Assumption College (where they are doing fabulous work – note to Christian students interested in studying politics), Glenn Arbery, President of Wyoming Catholic, and Professor John Eastby from Hampton-Sydney College (who was so kind to me when I interviewed there).

We were all so sad and continue to be sad about the loss of so dear a man, so great a teacher, and so interesting a thinker.

Don’t Cry for me Mr. Schumer

Comey Fired! The Left positively livid! Especially that smooth-talking hypocrite, Senator Chuck Schumer. “Trump should have fired Comey sooner,” he says. Maybe the day Schumer called for Comey to be fired? Schumer would have still found fault.

The talking heads tell us how in the past the White House had an orderly process for handling things like this; only that dastardly Nixon ever did something so outrageous. But do you think Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor hired to investigate the Watergate Scandal, was shocked that Richard Nixon went after his job?   When people say “Nixonian” they forget what Nixon did wrong in the Watergate Scandal – he tried to cover up the misdeeds of some fairly low level employees.

Who in DC today defends low level employees? Wait, I know the answer, Democrats. They defend every job, every person, no matter what they have done because they are a team. Republicans belong to a society of individualists, a nice way of saying our side is filled with people too conservative to take any risks for anybody. To be fair to Republicans, they have proper concerns about defending those who are actually guilty; however, they don’t always take the time to find out if they are guilty.

While we are on the subject of White Houses past, let me tell you a tale about the Clinton White House.

Once upon a time there was a new Speaker of the House of Representatives and the shock on November 8th, 1994, when he was elected along with scores of new Republican congressmen, was much like the one we saw last November 8th. The Congress was now in Republican hands; Oh my!  How could this have happened?

While FBI Director Comey has had plenty of time and every reason to think the Republican President might replace him, I could not have expected what happened to me and Schumer was a key player in my demise. He was not fair; he didn’t make sure the timing was right or that I was informed about what was coming.  No one, except a couple of reporters, who could hardly be heard above the pack on my front lawn.

The Left didn’t bother to investigate the charges, it was enough that I’d been hired by their nemesis,  Newt Gingrich. As his first hire, I was fair game even if I was a brand new innocent on the Hill who was so far from being an anti-Semite that I was eventually defended by Anti-Defmation League of B’nai B’rith.

I was hired by that new Speaker, who just happened to be my congressman and I had no reason to think he would fire me from the rather obscure, but important job of House Historian. How could I have anticipated that in less than a week, within an hour or so of Schumer’s demand that I be fired, it would happen in the middle of the night.  Later, Newt’s press secretary would brag that mine was the faster firing in history. My picture was on CNN every 15 minutes and on the front page of every newspaper in the country the next morning.

Piecing together what happened with the help of friendly reporters (the Speaker had a lot of enemies), someone (maybe in his inner circle) informed the White House that Newt Gingrich had hired a professor (me) who had once criticized a Holocaust Education grant proposal. Since she was from the South, and she’d been hired by HIM, her reason for criticizing the proposal had to be because she was an anti-Semite. Some New York papers called me “Newt’s Nazi historian.”

On the Monday after the new Congress was sworn in, George Stephanopoulos informed Jewish, black, and female Democrat members of Congress, that the Gingrich appointee to the House Historian job was an anti-Semite. There were one-minute speeches before the opening of the Congress; Schumer and Barney Frank had a rally on the House steps that night to demand my firing. Schumer yelled that hiring me was an insult to tens of thousands of his constituents who were Holocaust survivors.

About 9:00 p.m., Newt talked with the press – I don’t think he knew what to say; he told half of them I’d been fired and the other half that I had resigned. Asked by Atlanta Journal and Constitution reporter Jeanne Cummings exactly how he had informed me, she was told I was fired on my answering machine. The truth was this: I was not fired and I did not resign – instead I tried to persuade Newt that letting the Left bully him was a bad way to start his Speakership.  He never said to me, that I was fired, but dozens of reporters had heard him say it. My husband flew to Georgia, to talk to him privately in his Marietta Office. He should have listened to us.

This all happened only days after Newt Gingrich had praised my qualifications on National Television; the day after he fired me he said, “I hold her in high esteem.”

Mr. Comey has a net worth in excess of 11 million dollars – $10,894,000 more than I had when I was fired (http://www.newsweek.com/james-comey-net-worth-salary-fbi-director-trump-fired-pay-606406). I sure wish Chuck Schumer and the other breathless defenders of James Comey, who are complaining about the timing, the means, the lack of notice, etc., had cared about the way I was treated. But no. This is what he said to me, in front of his entire staff, including his Chief of staff, Anthony Wiener: “We knew you weren’t anti-Semitic, but hey, your people did not defend you.”

Unfortunately, the Right usually bows to the bullying; but not Donald J. Trump. Many Republicans accuse him of not being conservative, but he sure is courageous.

Anyone who fights back against the bullies is going to offend the Left. The Schumers and their ilk have been bullying the Right for so long, they both think it’s natural.

When a leader stands up to bullies, you know what happens? Others find their courage as well. The District of Columbia is going to be a better place for conservatives, whether they like Trump or not, whether Trump is a conservative or not.  If conservatives don’t start to warm to him, then we really are as stupid as the Left says we are.

Three cheers for Donald J. Trump, draining the swamp to make America great again.

The Convention of the States

As I write, the South Carolina Senate is considering a bill calling for a Convention of the States (COS) or ConCon (Constitution Convention).

S.547 Con Con (Article V Convention) Bill is before the SC Senate Judiciary Subcommittee and has been under discussion in Columbia, in the Gressette Room 209, since 9AM this morning.

The Constitution provides two ways of proposing Amendments and two ways of ratifying them. Since the adoption of the Constitution, Congress has itself proposed every amendment that has been ratified and ratification of every amendment except one, has been by 3/4 of the state legislatures; the one was the 21st which repealed prohibition.

The unused way to propose Amendments is for 3/4 of the state legislatures to call for a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments. Proponents want ratification to be the more traditional route, that is by 3/4 of the state legislatures.

 

The ConCon or Convention of the States (COS) is not a good idea because it is not possible to limit the powers of a convention – in fact, that is how our Constitution came into existence. Lightly educated people criticize the delegates to the Constitutional Convention (the Founders) for exceeding their authority, but that is incorrect. We inherited the British tradition of allowing every convention to set its own rules. A ConCon that cannot set its own rules would be something strange and innovative. Conservatives are naturally skeptical of such breaks with Western tradition because the can be precedent setting and the fallout could be dangerous to self-government everywhere.

Every convention makes its own rules (and some of them, the ones not run by Communists, or other lawless thugs, are conscientious about following the rules they adopt and going by the universally accepted Robert’s Rules. Democrats, Progressives, Communists and others willing to cheat in order to advance their agenda, cannot be counted on to play by the rules – they may also pretend to be conservative in order to elected to the COS.

The problem with the COS is at least two-fold: First, to agree on a set of rules that no one will try to change in convention; and Second, to get those who agree to a set of rules to follow them once the Convention starts – we live in corrupt times, people’s word is not their bond and sometimes their bond is fake too, so it is very difficult to guarantee either one in our godless era. Ergo, it seems to me, that we had better stick with what we have and try to make it work – there are still people who respect the Constitution, will there be more people who respect the new and improved Constitution? Will the people now pushing it like the results? Too many questions – I say, let’s not do this.

I posted a version of this argument on my FB page (this one is just a little more cleaned up) and got some interesting responses to share with my readers:

 

Comments
Jeff Duncan
Jeff Duncan Any amendments to the Constitution would still need to be ratified by 2/3rds of the states, correct? [This is Congressman Jeff Duncan of South Carolina.]
Evan Mulch You have a hard time obeying the U.S. Constitution yourself. Do you really think the Convention delegates would obey the U.S. Constitution? A runaway Convention may be what takes place if a Convention is called. [I don’t think Evan means Jeff personally, but rather, the Congress as a whole.]
Barbara Wilson Yes…38 states [editor’s note – that’s 3/4 – Barbara is correct and the good Congressman is wrong] would have to ratify any new amendment(s), from my understanding. I am against any ConCon. I will never forget all the lawyers arguing for an entire evening at the Convention center, among the Greenville County GOP Executive Committeemen, over wanting just one English word being changed from “shall” to “will”! What a waste of time! (I said the verse, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” does NOT mean “maybe”!! “Shalt” (shall) meant a definite “WILL”! No need to change the old English! We just need good scholarly men and women who know how to study the Bible and the original Constitution!
Eric Buss What we are witnessing is political feudalism. As in the European middle ages, men (and armies) would shift to the most beneficial circumstance at the moment. It is the Nature of man to factionalize. What is expedient in the moment is not necessarily what will further his final goal. That is where we are. The fight has defeated the cause.
When the lords of the land shift loyalties, the foot soldier must determine his oath to the final goal or to the lord.

Immediate master or final goal is what we are deciding.
COS is the means by which the footsoldiers can reaffirm their commitment to the final goal or pledge allegiance to a man/cause. Liberty is a messy affair. Neglected liberty is doubly so. What we are living under resembles nothing of the liberty that was inherited by our generation. I strongly affirm that any means we have at our disposal should be brought to bear in the restoration of our constitutional republic. The progressive/communists are defeating us by using the law against us. Unless a patriot is willing to bear arms in defense of liberty, there are few options available to the citizens for the redress of grievances. If one were so inclined to take up arms, remember this:
1. No strategy
2. No Unity
3. No tactical advantage.
The only option left is to use their own strategy against them. Know the law. Educate citizens about the law and to illustrate through a COS that the law works both ways. Chains can be used universally. The federal government has already usurped their role and exceeded their jurisdiction. Apart from a full recital of the declaration​ of independence, the COS is all we have left in our peaceful arsenal. My thoughts as one who knows the inner workings of the 3% and oath keeper groups and their lack of will.

————–

I confess I do not fully understand what Eric Buss is saying, but I have heard John Eastman on this subject and he is very convincing, but while he is the most convincing and the most reliable advocate of this cause I know, he’s still not convincing enough. But you decide. Hear the former Dean of the Chapman Law School here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24iPESIPmms.

See also here, a refutation of the good Dr. Eastman as well as a treasure trove of related Constitutional information: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/convention-of-states-project/

What do you think of these plans for and objections to a ConCon. After reviewing the arguments, for the umpteenth time, I am more convinced than ever that the COS/ConCon is a bad idea.   I would love to know what you think.

Check back here to find out what happened at the SC State Senate Judiciary hearing on the ConCon/COS.