Home | Issues | Perspective | Audio | Guests | Images | Live Chat | Links | Search | About | Contact

Are we being Con-Conned Out of our

2nd Amendment Rights to Keep and Bear Arms?

Practice our chosen religion? Educate our children?



In the summer of 1992 I read a newsletter detailing the facts about the on going effort to dismantle tion. I was shocked to my very core, frightened and puzzled. "Why didn't we know about this?!!" Since that time I've heard the same question in those exact words dozens of times.


Our constitution was hanging by a thread and had been since 1983 when Missouri legislators passed a resolution calling for an Article V Amendment Convention. "What's that?" some of you might ask; and "What's the danger?"


The U.S. Constitution in itself simply lays out the structure of the Federal Government and what it can do, according to Article I, Sec. 8. In short, it's a blueprint for centralized government.


The first ten Articles of Amendment (Bill of Rights) are the ties that bind - the cage if you will - that restricts the potential power of that government to run amok (think Soviet Union and other dictatorial countries). The Bill of Rights tells the federal government what it can not do.


An Amendment Convention would open the door to tinkering, tweaking and even totally rewriting the entire constitution, leaving out the Bill of Rights and granting privileges in its place.  A "privilege" is a concession given by some higher authority; the granter of privileges can take away a privilege on a whim. As a matter of fact, the Bill of Rights does not give us our rights, it protects our already God-given rights.


Advocates of a convention deceptively offer false assurances that a convention can be limited to a single subject. Many state legislators feel safe with their state's call for an Amendment Convention because they've been told that adding a "null and void" clause would nullify their call if the convention not be limited to the specific purpose of proposing an amendment to balance the budget. That is not true. If thirty-four states make the call, the Congress is forced, under Article V, to convene the convention. No state can back out of it.

In answer  to the question, "Why didn't we know?!" - that is because it has been a quiet, sneaky, deceitful effort beginning in 1964 when the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations funded a commission, calling upon the expertise of a hundred "social experimenters", to write a new constitution for America.


It took ten years, $25,000,000 and forty drafts before they were finally satisfied with their efforts. That final draft was published in a book titled, "The Emerging Constitution", by Rexford G. Tugwell (Harper & Row, 1974). Remember that year: 1974


Before we go further into the details of their ongoing efforts to dismantle our constitution, let us see what life in America -- our lives, our children and grandchildren's lives -- would be like under the Constitution for the Newstates of America:


Article 1A Sec.8 - "The practice of religion shall be privileged".


Article 1-A Sec.11 - "Education shall be provided at public expense for those who meet appropriate tests of eligibility."


Article 1B Sec. 8 - "Bearing of arms shall be confined to the police, members of the armed forces, and those licensed under law."


We will undoubtedly lose our homes and farm lands. That plan was revealed in 1934 by Rexford Tugwell, author of The Emerging Constitution, mentioned above. In an article by the Phillip County News, Malta, Montana, January 1934, titled "Tugwell Predicts New Regulations for Land With Federal Control" (excerpted)

"Use of all land, public and private will be controlled by the federal government in the future, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Rexford Tugwell predicted this week. . .  he concluded, 'Private control has failed to use wisely its control of the land. We are preparing a land program not merely for the benefit of those who held title to it but for the greater welfare of all the citizens of the country'."


That land control issue is covered in the Newstates Constitution:


Article 1A Sec.12 - "No property shall be taken without compensation." (notice it does not say "just" or "fair" compensation)


Article II, Sec.9 - "Taxes on land may be at higher rates than those on its improvements."


Article 9 Sec.2. -  "Areas necessary for the uses of government may be acquired at its valuation and may be maintained as the public interest may require "


Article 9 Sec.16. - "To acquire property and improvements for public use at costs to be fixed, if necessary, by the Court of Claims."


The "Newstates" under this new constitution are "regions", combining some and dividing some, which will eliminate the present states, their boundaries, state legislatures, etc.  Appointed bureaucrats bear titles such as Regulators, Watchkeepers, Overseers and Protectors.


ARTICLE II Sec.1 - "There shall be Newstates, each comprising no less than 5 percent of the whole population."


Article XII Sec.5 - "For establishing Newstates boundaries a commission of thirteen, appointed by the President, shall make recommendations within one year."


In 1974 -- the same year "The Emerging Constitution" was published -- then V.P. Nelson Rockefeller engineered a resolution calling for an unlimited Con-Con to be held in 1976. The Newstates Constitution was (and still IS) waiting in the wings. Public opposition killed that effort, so the proponents began lobbying states to pass a resolution calling for a "limited" Con-Con under the ostensible purpose of adding a balanced budget amendment.


By 1983, the American Legislative Exchange Council's (ALEC) hired lawyer, John Armor, had persuaded 32 of the required 34 states to make the call for a Convention. At that time an unsung hero, Doug Kelley, began actively warning legislators of the dangers, and encouraged three states to rescind their call. On Doug's watch there were no other calls until 1993.


In '93, an all-out effort was made when 12 states simultaneously introduced Article V Amendment Convention  resolutions. By the grace of God, and thousands of people networking around the country, that effort was defeated. 


Not to be deterred, the planners again went back to the drawing board and in '95 came up with what they believed to be their Grande Finale: A Conference of States, (COS) to be held in historic Philadelphia (where the first Conference of States became the first and only Constitutional Convention).

That was a back-door attempt to open a Convention, and they nearly pulled it off.  So sure of success were the powers behind the effort, a Canadian newspaper in 1995 informed its readers that British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, would be out of the country in October, attending an "important convention" in Philadelphia. We discovered later that Margaret Thatcher’s secretary was an advisor to the COS. Obviously, this is NOT a game to the con-con promoters.


What could happen  in the event of a "limited" con-con?  What will most probably happen?


An Article V Amendment Convention makes its own rules, cannot be limited, and could indeed throw out the entire structure, including our protections under the first ten Articles of Amendment (Bill of Rights). The unbridled power of the delegates to a con-con has been acknowledged several times by various State Supreme Courts, and a letter from former U.S. Chief Justice Warren Burger confirms the danger.  In his letter Justice Berger said:


" . . . there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. . . .  After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don't like its agenda."


[NOTE] During these past eighteen years several more states have rescinded their call.


Those of us who actively worked to defeat the measures believed/hoped it was finally over. It is NOT over. At present (2013) the powers behind the effort to open that document have hit us with a five-pronged attack. 1) ALEC has the ear of approximately 2,500 Republican legislators, 2) the NCSL (National Conference of State  Legislators) has the ear of Democratic legislators. They are both actively pushing this movement, along with the 3) Compact for America, 4) the NDRA (National Debt Relief Amendment, and last but not least, 5) the Goldwater Institute.


Although they appear to be separate, there are interlinks to one another. One force; undoubtedly, the same force that paid $25,000,000, spent ten years and were finally satisfied with the fortieth draft, to get their  Constitution for the NewStates of America.    


OUR CONCERNS: We believe the time is ripe for those waiting to break into and dismantle the U.S. Constitution. Uninformed state legislators believe - because they're told - 1) that an Article V Convention can be limited to one subject; 2) that adding a "balanced budget amendment" will fix the economic problems which all states are facing today; and 3) even if a total rewrite should happen "they" would never ratify.


What they are NOT told, in that matter, is that there are two modes of ratification; the U.S. Congress decides which mode will be used; and state legislatures can be totally bypassed in favor of "ratifying conventions"! The problem/danger is: There is no provision in Article V empowering state legislators to choose the delegates to a Constitutional Convention or  to "limit" the scope of a Con-Con. There are no rules, no regulations nor instructions, and once a Convention is underway, the delegates answer to NOBODY!


The Committee on the Constitutional System (CCS), stated they want to wait until the U.S. is in a 1929 type depression to call a convention, because only then would the public accept the radical changes they intend to make.


Here we are today, experiencing an economic collapse that financial experts predict will be a 1929 type depression. One stated that it will "make 1929 look like a walk in the park".


A recent Wall Street Journal article reads: "The worst budget crisis in decades is forcing states to cut funding to cash-strapped cities, which already are slashing police, firefighters and other services."


Our State legislators are panicked and somehow have convinced themselves that a balanced-budget amendment will be obeyed, even though the President and Congress have been violating it all for decades. Pray they will wake up to this scam before it's too late. They have the power to open Pandora's Box, and will find themselves powerless to close it should they take the wrong path. 


We hope to avoid a repeat of 1993; each of the twelve states  mentioned were ready and waiting for their sessions to open. The con-con resolutions hit one after another at the beginning of the year. In '95, twelve states had passed a COS resolution before the end of January, because the legislators were told "it will put the teeth into the 10th Amendment". They suspended rules, bypassed committees and brought it to the floor for a quick vote.


We urge you readers to further educate yourselves and keep abreast of the situation.


May our Heavenly Father bless America and may He bless and guide our work.


Jackie Patru

January 1, 2009

(updated March, 2013)

Entire section featuring all Con-Con and COS articles



Home | Issues | Perspective | Audio | Guests | Images | Live Chat | Links | Search | About | Contact