2
bOObs 2 points ago +2 / -0

This woman, a law professor, makes it clear that in order to wipe out the 2nd Amendment an Article V Convention has to be triggered and that's the plan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l1mu0tt5yk

And it's not just California's initiative, but also Convention of States project, Term Limits, Balanced Budget Amendment and so on... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwgIV3WL5XE

1
bOObs 1 point ago +1 / -0

Jimmy Dore is also on Rumble, where I believe he uploads vids he wouldn't upload to YT, due to censorship.

Watch out for his pro-socialist bias (Green Party type of propaganda), he's naive enough to believe in it, even though he has good intentions.

1
bOObs 1 point ago +1 / -0

They're not kaput yet. Orban spilled the beans three weeks ago and said that NATO is about to go in with a so-called peacekeeping mission. (my post)

1
bOObs 1 point ago +1 / -0

Judging by the participation in Anakonda-16 military exercise from 2016, Poland, US and UK will be the core of such mission. Participation of most of the NATO seems likely though.

Only Hungary and maybe Croatia are unlikely to participate.

2
bOObs 2 points ago +2 / -0

You may want to check the video: 'The Constitutional Convention Coup' from the yt channel: Third Paradigm.

1
bOObs 1 point ago +1 / -0

My grandma, she's in her 80s, also had an accident lately and in hospital they gave her tetanus jab without asking. It pissed me off, so I checked what's exactly in that thing: it's an 'old-school' deactivated-bug kind of an jab with some mercury in it. Best to avoid every jab, nevertheless this one seems relatively safe when compared with others. Didn't affect my grandma, thank God.

1
bOObs 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm not an American (PL), so I'm unqualified to instruct You in that matter. Nevertheless, I've been observing how the COS, BBA and other pro-Article-5-convention organisations, push their agenda through: they created organized and indoctrinated local cells of support and pressed their representatives by i.e. petitions (some fraudulent) possibly also: visits, letters, phone calls etc.

One thing is for sure: "Ask and You shall receive", especially when done in numbers and in a polite and educated way. It's my impression that state representatives are usually susceptible to opinion of their electorate. Some are not, they literally sold their support to COS etc. Good luck!

I got interested in this issue, because I find US Constitution miraculous and I realized early on that COS and others are nothing else but a malicious attempt of destroying it, by praying on naive, but good willing people.

7
bOObs 7 points ago +7 / -0

Solution: make your state representative work on rescinding all of Art 5 convention applications in your state, i.e.: Convention of States, Balanced Budget Amendment, Term Limits, Wolf-pac, etc. It's only a matter of time until those trigger a Constitutional Convention aka Art 5 Convention, which will mark the end of the US Constitution.

Some helpful organisations: John Birch Society, Eagle Forum of Phillis Schlafly, Freedom First Society of Dan Fotheringham, Guard the Constitution of Shawn Meehan.

8
bOObs 8 points ago +8 / -0

Incredible. Poland/Germany had a major ecological 'catastrophe' with its second larges river Odra/Oder few weeks ago. Tonnes of fish were culled, strange foam on the surface and there are no culprits found. :https://invidious.namazso.eu/watch?v=MYh75Q092gc (copy-paste).

Those fuckers are trying to starve us.

1
bOObs 1 point ago +1 / -0

Madison, Hamilton and Washington were strongly opposed to Art 5 Convention of any sort. They did not hide the fact that this clause is a weak point of the Constitution, created as a last minute compromise with the anti-federalists, made to get the draft of the 1787' Constitution finally signed:

• J.Madison in Federalist No.49 (Feb 2nd, 1788) said, a convention is neither proper nor effective to restrain government when it encroaches. "The passions therefore, not the reason of the public, would sit in judgment." (in the event of the Convention).

• J.Madison said in his letter to Turberville (Nov 2nd, 1788), he “trembled” at the prospect of a second convention. If there was an Article 5 convention, then “the most violent partizans” and “individuals of insidious views” would strive to be delegates and would have “a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric of our Country".

• A.Hamilton in Federalist No.85 (May 28th,1788; last paragraph) said, he “dreads” the consequences of another convention because the enemies of the Constitution want to get rid of it.

• G.Washington warned Richard Peters in his letter (Sep 7th,1788. last paragraph), about the danger he saw threatening the peace and prosperity that was only recently restored to the people of America (G. Mason's initiative for a new Constitution, Virginia). He perceived a second convention of states as an existential threat to the Republic.

1
bOObs 1 point ago +1 / -0

Neither. It's the Convention who proposes amendments and, since it's the Congress who creates the laws for the purpose of the convention, Congress will determine the outcome of the Convention.

States only apply, therefore they have no guaranteed say on the matter. Their applications have no legal standing other than applying for a Convention only. Congress may allow the convention to create entirely new ratification method, basing on the 1787 precedence, so even then the state's role is unknown.

1
bOObs 1 point ago +1 / -0

You don't need to know the specific language of the state applications to determine the outcome of such Convention.

It's the Congress who calls the Convention; states only apply (Art V). In combination with Art I, sec 8, last clause, Congress additionally has exclusive and unlimited legislative powers over the Convention. Those who set the rules determine the outcome.

Language of a state application has no legal power, only thing that matters is whether the state applies for a Convention or not. (scholars). That's why the enemies of the US Constitution simultaneously push Wolf-pac in liberal states and COS, BBA and Term Limits initiatives in the republican states. The goal is 34 state applications in total (Wolf-pac+COS+BBA+Term Limits+...), because that's the point of no return for the US.

They (Pelosi, Schumer) will determine how the state delegates are chosen, how the votes are counted (electoral college?), what issue has priority, will deliberations of the Convention take place behind closed doors, what additional amendments to the Constitution be considered, should convention consider new ratification method of the new constitution (basing on the 1787 precedence), etc... Here is a statement made by constitutionalist Edwin Vieria on the matter.

2
bOObs 2 points ago +2 / -0

Except that clause was put there by i.e. G. Mason at the end of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, because they stated they want a new Constitution when the time comes, to the opposition of Madison, Hamilton and Washington. It was accepted as a compromise made in order to finally come up with a draft of the supreme document.

Mason and some others (Adams?) indeed campaigned in 1788 for an Art 5 Convention (to put in a Bill of Rights), but because Madison, Hamilton, Washington and some others wanted to avoid a Convention at all costs (since it would bring new Constitution and destroy the Federation), they started to advocate against that and convinced Mason to do it through a single amendment option multiple times.

sources: Madison in Federalist No.49 and in his letter to Turberville (Nov 2nd, 1788); Hamilton in Federalist No.85; Washington in his letter to Richard Peters (Sep 7th,1788).

1
bOObs 1 point ago +1 / -0

Very much so, as Federal Register points out in 2nd paragraph [here].

The whole trick is about gaining enough support to trigger the COS, before people realize that they are actually getting a Con-Con. It's the 'reset' option of the whole of the Constitution, its weakest spot, compromise of 1787 Philadelphia Convention. Once triggered it cannot be stopped, everything will be on the table, contrary to what the COS promoters claim. Madison, Hamilton, Washington warned the enemies of the republic will use Art. 5 Convention option.

COS has already been caught attempting changes to the 2nd Amendment [link].

1
bOObs 1 point ago +1 / -0

It always was in the wrong hands. Any Art. 5 Convention marks the end of the US Constitution. US never had one since the ratification, because of G. Washington, J. Madison and A. Hamilton: • J. Madison in Federalist No.49 (Feb.2,1788) said, a convention is neither proper nor effective to restrain government when it encroaches."The passions therefore, not the reason of the public, would sit in judgment." • J. Madison said in his letter to Turberville (Nov. 2nd, 1788), he “trembled” at the prospect of a second convention. If there was an Article 5 Convention, then “the most violent partisans” and “individuals of insidious views” would strive to be delegates and would have “a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric of our Country". • A. Hamilton in Federalist No. 85 (May 28th, 1788) [last para] said, he “dreads” the consequences of another convention because the enemies of the Constitution want to get rid of it. • G. Washington warned Richard Peters in his letter (Sep. 7th, 1788) [last para], about the danger he saw threatening the peace and prosperity that was only recently restored to the people of America. He perceived a second convention of states as an existential threat to the Republic.

Bonus 1.: COS caught preparing an attack on the 2nd Amendment [*]

Bonus 2. (my own find): National Registry equating Article 5 Convention with a Con-Con [**]. It means that the Convention cannot ever be restricted to the issues enumerated in the application, regardless if it's COS, BBA, Wolf-Pac etc. Whole Constitution would be open to changes, opposite to what the COS claims.

Some additional sources: lecture by Joanna Martin (retired JAG attorney) [1] and her notes [2], Justice Scalia on the Article 5 Convention [3], COS myths vs. reality [4], Phyllis Schlafly [5]

1
bOObs 1 point ago +1 / -0

Acc. to the John Birch Society it's 27 states that have a 'live' Art.V Con. application, not 17 [1]. The end of the US Constitution may be closer than COS is willing to admit, maybe that's why the sudden big push for it.

7
bOObs 7 points ago +7 / -0

States are not allowed to interfere with the Art.V Convention or even to choose their own delegates, acc. to Congress and SCOTUS [1] (p.4., par.2., points 1,2,4). All amendments intended by the States are irrelevant. It's also possible that the Convention will take place behind the closed doors.

What You'll get via the Art.V Con. is a NWO Constitution, written by Soros&Co [2] like Wolfpac/The Young Turks/Cenk Uyghur+Ana Kasparian[3](2nd red paragraph) and 2013' Bilderberger prof. Larry Lessig [3.2](16:00). Rightful Convention leaders: Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. Whatever they'll come up with will be ratified by the popular vote via the voting machines and tons of handout-loving migrants.

Joanna Martin's lecture [4] and her fantastic notes [5]. JBS vs. the Art.V Con. [6].

You may not trust me, maybe You'll trust Justice Scalia on this [7] (1:05:55). Legal definition of the Art.V Con. is "Constitutional Convention" (Black's Law Dictionary, 5th edition, 1979, used by SCOTUS) [8]. Mark Levin, Mark Meckler and everyone else promoting the Art.V Con are the enemies of the US Constitution.

1
bOObs 1 point ago +1 / -0

US National Archives also proves that Art.V Convention is a Constitutional Convention (!) [1]: "The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. (...) The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures." Calling it by 'convention of states' or by any other name, doesn't change the fact that it's a con-con. It's a deathtrap.

2
bOObs 2 points ago +2 / -0

Here's a prime example of socialists shilling for an Art.V convention: Cenk Uyghur & Ana Kasparian/ The Young Turks/ Wolfpac [1](2nd red paragraph). They too claim Art.V convention would be only for adding amendments, but in reality it's the only way they can butcher the US Constitution.

1
bOObs 1 point ago +1 / -0

Your causes are right, however You're being led into a deathtrap. Art.V Convention 'movement' is a socialist ploy against the US Constitution.

Art.V Convention, called lately a "convention of states", is legally and historically known as a "constitutional convention"(!) and here's the proof: Black's Law Dictionary, 5th edition (1979) (SCOTUS and other fed. courts use it) [1]. Justice Antonin Scalia never supported Art.V Convention [2], but warned against it, just like J. Madison [3].

1
bOObs 1 point ago +1 / -0

How do You know those labels differ in other countries?

view more: Next ›