Welcome to our website:
Constitutionists United Against
a Constitutional Convention.
for a CONstitutional CONvention, because it
can not be limited to any single issue
and therefore there is a high risk of having our
entire United States Constitution re-written at a
run-a-way Constitutional Convention!
When ever new amendments to our Constitution
are proposed, we always ask the question:
Is this going to lead to a Con-Con?"
Instead, we recommend that the state legislators
of all of the states that currently have calls for a
Constitutional Convention RECIND their states
call for a Con-Con before the required number of
states gets close enough to cause this to happen!
Constitutionists United Against a Constitutional Convention
P. O. Box 11175, Glendale, California 91226-7175
WARNING – Beware of the latest
plot to destroy our U.S. Constitution!
Watch out for the “Convention of the States” which is the latest plot to trigger a Constitutional Convention and rush this through this year in 2015!
This is supported by "Citizens for Self-Governance" for a “Balanced Budget Amendment” which I call the “The Excuse to Raise our Taxes Amendment”! and for term limits!
Although, this is designed to appeal to “Conservatives”, many “liberal” anti-gun Democrats who hate the Second Amendment may suddenly join in when they learn that a “Con-Con” cannot be limited to just one single issue and therefore remove several very important rights that are protected and guaranteed by our “Bill of Rights” such as our “Second Amendment”!
Even the whole idea of a “Balanced Budget Amendment” is wrong because a budget can be balanced by raising our taxes to pay for their excessive spending!
Instead of calling for a “Balanced Budget Amendment”, they should pass legislation that will make it illegal to spend money by borrowing funds that we do not have!
Sincerely yours for our Constitution,
Elliott Graham, Founder and Chairman
Constitutionalists United Against a Constitutional Convention
We must STOP the TREASON NOW!
before we lose everything in 2014!
Please click onto this link to view this revealing video:
Many organizations have opposed resolutions that call for a
Constitutional Convention for the simple reason; that it can
NOT be limited to any one single issue
and therefore the risk of having a
run-away Constitutional Convention
would very likely happen!
Here is a partial list of some of the organizations
that have opposed the Con-Con:
Eagle Forum, Daughters of the American Revolution, American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, AFL-CIO, National Rifle Association, United Republicans of California, California Democratic Party, The American Independent Party, National Association to Keep and Bear Arms, The Constitution Party, American Pistol and Rifle Association, Pro-America, The John Birch Society, The Second Amendment Committee of Hanford, California, Constitutionists United Against a Constitutional Convention, United Organizations of Taxpayers and Voters Against Conspiracy And Treason.
Prominent Constitutional Scholars and
Former Justices of The U.S. Supreme Court:
Harvard University Professor Lawrence Tribe, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger. Commission on the Bicentennial of the U. S. Constitution, U.S Supreme Court Justice Arthur J. Goldberg (appointed by President John F. Kennedy), Phyllis Schlafly, founder and president of the Eagle Forum, Howard Phillips, founder and chairman of the Conservative Caucus, and Dr. Robert Morris, former president of the Universities of Dallas and Plano.
Conspirators, globalists and traitors who hate our system of limited government under our United States Constitution and who want to scrap our nations sovereignty for interdependenceï¿½ under a United Nations world government will use any trick possible to get Americans to fall for the false idea that: ï¿½We can solve any problem by having a constitutional convention, because it can be limited to just that one particular issueï¿½. That premise is completely false! If they will lie about this fact, it should be obvious that they will lie about anything, including a complete change of our U.S. Constitution or an entirely new constitution!
Great News! 11 years ago (2004) 3 more states,
(Georgia, South Carolina and Virginia) passed
resolutions to recind their previous call for
a constitutional convention!
Bad News, Now these 3 States
want to reinstate the Con-Con!
Now Georgia, Virginia and South Carolina want to undo
this because they forgot what they did 11 years ago!
Beware of the "Constitution of the States!"
Now Virginia, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina and
Florida are again asking for a Constitutional Convention!
If you live in Virginia, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Oklahoma or any other State that calls for a Constitutional Convention, please write immediately to your State Senator and the other State Representative (Assemblyman or Delegate) that you very strongly OPPOSE this and consider it to be an act of treason! Be sure to tell them that you will never ever support or vote for them again if they participate in any action that leads to a Con-Con!
If any of you have a copy of your states resolutions that recinded their previous con-con resolutions, please send us a copy by e-mail to: email@example.com so that we can post it on this website.
Oklahoma and Ohio have
"Con-Con" Resolutions too!
SB1903, is a resolution applying for an Article V Amendments Convention for specific
purpose; limiting Convention to proposal for amendment to United States Constitution to require state legislative approval for increase in federal debt.
Click here for the Oklahoma Legislature, click "Legislation," over on the right, then "Basic Bill Search" and you can search the status and the bill.
This resolution was passed in the Senate March 12, sent to the House on the 19th, has already had two readings and is now in the House Judiciary Committee. The Sponsors are Senator Steve Russell (R) and Representative Leslie Osborn (R), both most probably members of ALEC.
If it passes out of the committee, they'll do the 3rd reading, and take a vote. It could happen in the blink of an eye!
We ALL need to get on this NOW! First thing Monday morning!
Many say (or may think), "What's the difference? They're ignoring the Constitution anyway." Proponents of a Con-Con - Internationalist elite, big bankers, corporations, etc. - have been trying to get this done for over 50 years, that's why! They have a new Constitution drafted, waiting in the wings. No states, just 10 regions, with overseers; no gun rights, no free speech. Welcome to the New World Order! Check out the Constitution for the New States of America . You'll see why this is so urgent.
Let's focus on calls to:
Committee Chair Gus Blackwell,
(405) 557-7384 and
Vice Chair Mark McCullough. (405) 557-7414
Ron Natelson, who wrote the ALEC Handbook knows that. He admitted on page 2 of his book "Amending the Constitution by Convention" that:
"Of course, abuses of the Article V Amendment processes are possible".
The 43-page ALEC Handbook, telling legislators why and how they must apply to Congress for an Amendment Convention, added a disclaimer; it states:
"Nothing in this Handbook should be construed as legal advice; seek competent counsel in your own state."
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Berger wrote, in 1983:
"...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.
"Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey.
"After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don't like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress, 'for the sole and express purpose.'"
Question: How can you expect the government to pay any attention to an amendment when they're trampling the whole Constitution right now? Please don't risk our Constitution.
Call first thing Monday (as soon as you can)
Committee Chair, Gus Blackwell (405) 557-7384) and
Vice Chair Mark McCullough (405) 557-7414.
Those who can or will, please call THEN CALL AGAIN 2 OR 3 TIMES.
Securing the blessings of liberty,
PLEASE FORWARD THIS ACTION ALERT TO YOUR ENTIRE LIST; TO FRIENDS, FAMILY, OTHER GROUPS. ASK THEM TO MAKE THE CALL. LET'S RING THAT PHONE ALL DAY!!!
For information on the Ohio "Con-Con" Resolution,
Please go to this Eagle Forum website:
or just scroll down to read about it here:
|Applying for an Article V amendments convention.|
|WHEREAS, Article V of the Constitution of the United States provides authority for a convention to be called by the Congress of the United States for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution upon application of two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states ("amendments convention"); and|
|WHEREAS, The General Assembly of the State of Ohio favors the proposal and ratification of an amendment to said Constitution which shall provide that an increase in the federal debt requires approval from a majority of the legislatures of the separate states; now therefore be it|
|RESOLVED, That, as provided for in Article V of the Constitution of the United States, the General Assembly of the State of Ohio herewith respectfully applies for an amendments convention to be called for the purpose of proposing an amendment which shall provide that an increase in the federal debt requires approval from a majority of the legislatures of the separate states; and be it further|
|RESOLVED, That the amendments convention contemplated by this application shall be entirely focused upon and exclusively limited to the subject matter of proposing for ratification an amendment to the Constitution providing that an increase in the federal debt requires approval from a majority of the legislatures of the separate states; and be it further|
|RESOLVED, This application constitutes a continuing application in accordance with Article V of the Constitution of the United States until at least two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states have made application for an equivalently limited amendments convention; and be it further|
|RESOLVED, That the Clerk of the House of Representatives transmit duly authenticated copies of this resolution to the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, each member of the Ohio delegation to the United States Congress, and the presiding officers of each house of the several state legislatures, requesting their cooperation in applying for the amendments convention limited to the subject matter contemplated by this application.|
Now Arizona, Georgia, Virginia, South Carolina and Florida
are again asking for a Constitutional Convention!
If you live in Arizona, Georgia, Virginia, South Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Oklahoma or any other State that calls for a Constitutional Convention, please write immediately to your State Senator and the other State Representative (Assemblyman or Delegate) that you very strongly OPPOSE this and consider it to be an act of treason! Be sure to tell them that you will never ever support or vote for them again if they participate in any action that leads to a Con-Con!
Let voters know that we did
NOT forget that Arizona, Georgia
and South Carolina are repeating
the same mistake again and
will have to repeal it again!
For information on the attempt to call another
con-con in Arizona, please click on to this website:
For information on the attempt to call another con-con
in South Carolina, please click on to this website:
Every Political Party Should Oppose a
Constitutional Convention in their Platform
If you are a member of your state party's Platform Committee or if you
know someone who is, we suggest that you introduce or have a
member introduce a plank to oppose a "Con-Con" in your state
party's platform and next in your party's national platform.
This is the "No Con-Con" plank of the Constitution Party:
Constitutional Convention Plank
We affirm the original text of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We affirm that the nation's Charter, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution contain the foundational law of the federal union. We condemn, therefore, all legislative, executive, and judicial action that departs from the texts and intent of the Charter and the Constitution and their original meaning.
We oppose any attempt to call for a Constitutional convention, for any purpose whatsoever, because it cannot be limited to any single issue, and such convention could seriously erode our Constitutionally protected unalienable rights.
A very scary thought that might become reality!
By Elliott Graham of C.U.A.C.C.
Because it is not clear how delegates to an Article 5 Constitutional Convention are chosen, nor who will choose these delegates, I have this question: “What if those who choose these delegates decide to auction such positions to the highest bidders?”
If that were to happen, starting with million dollar bids, the con-con delegates most likely be such multi-billionaires as George Soros, former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates, David Rockefeller and many other “Citizens of the World” who want to have a one world United Nations Government!
If these traitors to our sovereignty and constitutional protected rights decide what a new constitution, for us, will be at a run-away constitutional convention, my prediction is that we will have the most extreme international totalitarian government ever!
There will no longer be a “Bill of Rights”, nor any freedom, for any individuals (including our Second Amendment (Gun) rights!) They will be lost forever!
To learn more, please go to:www.noconcon.com
Constitutionists United Against a Constitutional Convention
P. O. Box 11175, Glendale, California 91226-7175
We would like to receive e-mails of the
wording of these resolutions, so that we can
post it on this website and get all of the
remaining "con-con" resolution
states to adopt similar resolutions!
We need to get this information posted BEFORE any new
Constitutional Amendments are introduced!
Please contact your legislator immediately and tell them to
e-mail the wording of their resolution to us that recinded their
States call for a Constitutional Convention!
Our e-mail is: firstname.lastname@example.org
We should cut or reduce spending and
avoid a “Balanced Budget Amendment”
The problem with trying to get a “Balanced Budget Amendment” is that it can and will provide an excuse to raise our taxes and worse to have a constitutional convention!
Therefore a “Balanced Budget Amendment” should be avoided and re-named: “The Excuse to Have a Constitutional Convention or Raise Taxes Amendment”.
Instead of having another amendment to our U.S. Constitution, we should have members of Congress sign a “PLEDGE” with a penalty of perjury clause stating that they will “reduce spending in order to balance the budget without raising our taxes”.
a Constitutional Convention”
It is NEVER TOO SOON, but it can become TOO LATE!
As often said: "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!
It has come to our attention that the State of Missouri now has a resolution to recind their state's previous call for a Constitutional Convention. If you have the wording of this, please send this to me at email@example.com, so that I can post this on our website and of course we want to have every state that has a con-con resolution to recind their state's con-con resolution. Legislators from these states can e-mail these resolutions to me at:
and it will be greatly appreciated by all who love our
constitutional limited government freedoms!
The "con-con" will no longer be a threat, if every
state recinds their "con-con" resolutions!
To learn more about the great dangers of having a
CONstitutional CONvention, please click onto this link:
Georgia's Resolution to Recind their Con-Con
Here is the Resolution to Recind the State of Georgia's previous Con-Con Resolution: House Resolution 1343 (AS PASSED IN HOUSE AND SENATE) By: Representatives Coan of the 67th, Post 1, Westmoreland of the 86th, Brooks of the 47th, Moraitakis of the 42nd, Post 4, Jamieson of the 22nd, and others A RESOLUTION Rescinding, repealing, canceling, voiding, nullifying, and superseding any and all prior applications by the General Assembly heretofore made during any session thereof to the Congress of the United States of America to call a convention pursuant to the terms of Article V of the United States Constitution for proposing one or more amendments to that Constitution and urging the legislatures of other states to do the same; and for other purposes. WHEREAS, the General Assembly of the State of Georgia, acting with the best of intentions, has, at various times and during various sessions, previously made applications to the Congress of the United States of America to call one or more conventions to propose either a single amendment concerning a specific subject or to call a general convention to propose an unspecified and unlimited number of amendments to the United States Constitution, pursuant to the provisions of Article V thereof; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly during its 1952 Regular Session passed Resolution Act No. 53 (Ga. L. 1952, p. 472), applying to Congress for a constitutional convention for the limited purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution concerning treaty powers; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly during its 1952 Regular Session passed Resolution Act No. 61 (Ga. L. 1952, p. 480), applying to Congress for a constitutional convention for the limited purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution concerning limiting taxation; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly during its 1955 Regular Session passed Resolution Act No. 2 (Ga. L. 1955, p. 4), applying to Congress for a constitutional convention for the limited purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution concerning the independence of state schools; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly during its 1959 Regular Session passed Resolution Act No. 45 (Ga. L. 1959, p. 383), applying to Congress for a constitutional convention for the limited purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution concerning the independence of state schools; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly during its 1961 Regular Session passed Senate Resolution No. 39, applying to Congress for a constitutional convention for the limited purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution concerning the authority of the Supreme Court; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly during its 1965 Regular Session passed Resolution Act No. 89 (Ga. L. 1965, p. 559), applying to Congress for a constitutional convention for the limited purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution concerning the independence of state schools; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly during its 1967 Regular Session passed Resolution Act No. 96 (Ga. L. 1967, p. 894), applying to Congress for a constitutional convention for the limited purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution concerning refunds of federal taxes to the states; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly during its 1976 Regular Session passed Resolution Act No. 93 (Ga. L. 1976, p. 184), applying to Congress for a constitutional convention for the limited purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution concerning a federal balanced budget; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly during its 1991 Regular Session passed House Resolution No. 105 (Ga. L. 1991, p. 2041), applying to Congress for a constitutional convention for the limited purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution with respect to disrespectful actions involving the United States flag and the flags of the several states; and WHEREAS, former Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court Warren E. Burger, former Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court Arthur J. Goldberg, and other leading constitutional scholars agree that such a convention may propose sweeping changes to the Constitution, any limitations or restrictions purportedly imposed by the states in applying for such a convention or conventions to the contrary notwithstanding, thereby creating an imminent peril to the well-established rights of the citizens and the duties of various levels of government; and WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States of America has been amended many times in the history of this nation and may be amended many more times without the need to resort to a constitutional convention, and has been interpreted for more than two hundred years and has been found to be a sound document which protects the lives and liberties of the citizens; and WHEREAS, there is no need for and there is in fact great danger in a new constitution or in opening the Constitution to sweeping changes, the adoption of which would only create legal chaos in this nation and only begin the process of another two centuries of litigation over its meaning and interpretation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA that the General Assembly does hereby rescind, repeal, cancel, void, nullify, and supersede, to the same effect as if they had never been passed, any and all prior applications by the General Assembly to the Congress of the United States of America to call a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, pursuant to the terms of Article V thereof, regardless of when and regardless of whether such applications were for a more limited convention to propose one or more amendments regarding one or more specific subjects and purposes or for a general convention to propose an unlimited number of amendments upon an unlimited number of subjects. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Assembly hereby specifically repeals Resolution Act No. 53 (Ga. L. 1952, p. 472), passed during the 1952 Regular Session of the Georgia General Assembly; Resolution Act No. 61 (Ga. L. 1952, p. 480), passed during the 1952 Regular Session of the Georgia General Assembly; Resolution Act No. 2 (Ga. L. 1955, p. 4), passed during the 1955 Regular Session of the Georgia General Assembly; Resolution Act No. 45 (Ga. L. 1959, p. 383), passed during the 1959 Regular Session of the Georgia General Assembly; Senate Resolution No. 39, passed during the 1961 Regular Session of the Georgia General Assembly; Resolution Act No. 89 (Ga. L. 1965, p. 559), passed during the 1965 Regular Session of the Georgia General Assembly; Resolution Act No. 96 (Ga. L. 1967, p. 894), passed during the 1967 Regular Session of the Georgia General Assembly; Resolution Act No. 93 (Ga. L. 1976, p. 184), passed during the 1976 Regular Session of the Georgia General Assembly; and House Resolution No. 105 (Ga. L. 1991, p. 2041), passed during the 1991 Regular Session of the Georgia General Assembly. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Assembly urges the legislatures of each and every state that has applied to Congress to call a convention for either a general or limited constitutional convention to repeal and withdraw such applications. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the House of Representatives is authorized and directed to transmit an appropriate copy of this resolution to the presiding officers of both houses of the legislatures of each state in the Union, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, each member of the Georgia Congressional delegation, and the Administrator of General Services. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Georgia General Assembly Webmaster ... firstname.lastname@example.org.
Another great website to visit that has a lot of information
on protecting our gun rights and saving our U.S. Constitution
and "Bill of Rights" from a CONstitutional CONvention is:
LINK to http://www.libertygunrights.com
Arizona s Resolution to Recind their Con-Con Call
SCR 1022 passes in Arizona to recind Arizona s call for a constitutional convention!
Whereas, the Legislature of the State of Arizona, acting with the best of intentions, has in the past applied to the Congress of the United States by memorial or resolution in accordance with article V, Constitution of the United States, for one or more constitutional conventions for the purpose of amending the Constitution of the United States; and
Whereas, over the course of time, the will of the people of the State of Arizona has changed with regards to Arizonaï¿½s previous calls for a constitutional convention to amend the Constitution of the United States; and
Whereas, certain persons or states have called for a constitutional convention on issues that may be directly in opposition to the will of the people of this state; and
Whereas, the people of this state do not want their previous applications for a constitutional convention to be aggregated with those calls for a convention from other states; and
Whereas, former Justice of the United States Supreme Court Warren E. Burger, former Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court Arthur J. Goldberg and many other leading constitutional scholars are in general agreement that a convention, notwithstanding whatever limitation might be placed on it by the call for a convention, may propose sweeping constitutional changes or, by virtue of the authority of a constitutional convention, redraft the Constitution of the United States creating an imminent peril to the well established rights of citizens and to the duties of various levels of government; and
Whereas, the Constitution of the United States has been amended many times in the history of this nation and may be amended many more times without the need to resort to a constitutional convention, and has been interpreted for more than two hundred years and found to be a sound document that protects the lives and liberties of citizens; and
Whereas, there is no need for, and in fact there is great danger in, a new constitution or in opening the Constitution of the United States to radical changes, the adoption of which could create legal chaos in this nation and begin the process of another two centuries of litigation over its meaning and interpretation; and
Whereas, changes or amendments that may be needed in the present Constitution of the United States may be proposed and enacted without resorting to a constitutional convention by using the process provided in the Constitution and previously used throughout the history of this nation.
Therefore, Be it resolved by the Senate of the State of Arizona, the House of Representatives concurring:
1. That the Legislature of the State of Arizona hereby repeals, rescinds, cancels, renders null and void and supersedes any and all existing applications to the Congress of the United States for a constitutional convention under Article V of the Constitution of the United States for any purpose, whether limited or general.
2. That the Legislature of the State of Arizona urges the legislature of each and every state that has applied to Congress for either a general or limited constitutional convention to repeal and rescind their applications.
3. That the Secretary of State of the State of Arizona transmit copies of this resolution to the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Administrator of General Services in Washington, D.C., each Member of Congress from the State of Arizona and the Secretaries of State and presiding officers of both houses of the legislatures of each state in the Union.
If your state has a resolution that calls for a "Con-Con",
then please copy, paste and forward this copy of the Arizona Resolution that recinded their "Con-Con" Resolution to the members of your state legislature.
PRINT Arizona's Recission of the"Con-Con" Resolution.
South Carolina s Resolution to Recind their Con-Con Call
HERE IS THE BILL TO RECIND THE CON-CON IN SOUTH CAROLINA:
A BILL TO REPEAL JOINT RESOLUTION 775 OF 1976 WHICH CALLED ON CONGRESS TO BALANCE THE FEDERAL BUDGET THROUGH SUBMITTING AN APPROPRIATE AMENDMENT TO THE STATES FOR RATIFICATION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO CALL A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION FOR THIS PURPOSE, AND TO DISAVOW ANY OTHER CALLS FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION BY ANY MEANS EXPRESSED. Whereas, the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, acting with the best of intentions, at various times and during various sessions, has previously made applications to Congress to call one or more conventions to propose either a single amendment concerning a specific subject or to call a general convention to propose an unspecified and unlimited number of amendments to the United States Constitution, pursuant to the provisions of Article V thereof; and Whereas, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America Warren E. Burger, former Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court Arthur J. Goldberg, and other leading constitutional scholars agree that such a convention may propose sweeping changes to the Constitution, any limitations or restrictions purportedly imposed by the states in applying for such a convention or conventions to the contrary notwithstanding, thereby creating an imminent peril to the well-established rights of the citizens and the duties of various levels of government; and Whereas, the Constitution of the United States of America has been amended many times in the history of this nation and may be amended many more times, without the need to resort to a constitutional convention, and has been interpreted for more than two hundred years and has been found to be a sound document which protects the lives and liberties of the citizens; and Whereas, there is no need for, rather, there is great danger in, a new constitution or in opening the Constitution to sweeping changes, the adoption of which would only create legal chaos in this nation and only begin the process of another two centuries of litigation over its meaning and interpretation. Now, therefore, Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina: SECTION 1. Joint Resolution 775 of 1976 is repealed. SECTION 2. The General Assembly of the State of South Carolina disavows any other calls or applications, by any means expressed, including, but not limited to S.1024 of 1978, to Congress for a constitutional convention. SECTION 3. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor. ----XX---- This web page was last updated on January 7, 2005 at 2:38 PM
Please Do NOT sign away your freedom!
Do not be fooled into believing that a Constitutional Convention is good!
See what taxpayers have to say about a Con-Con!
DON'T SIGN AWAY YOUR HOMES AND PROPERTY!
Your Vice President's Outlook by Elliott Graham
(Elliott Graham is Vice President of the United Organizations of Taxpayers)
The big tax and spenders who hate Proposition 13 that we, including Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann, worked so hard to achieve, have figured our a way to undo everything that we have achieved to limit our property taxes and our two thirds majority safety net needed to raise our taxes! Because, we have limited what the Legislature and a simple majority of voters can do to us, they have come up with the idea of having a ï¿½California State Constitutional Conventionï¿½ call for a statewide constitutional convention that would rewrite our stateï¿½s constitution! By doing this, their Delegates will be able to throw out any and all articles or amendments that they want to remove, such as Proposition 13 and the two-thirds rule that we have enjoyed for all of these years! It has also been suggested that ï¿½We, the Peopleï¿½ (voters) no longer elect our State Treasurer or our stateï¿½s Controller by having these financial officers appointed instead of being elected! Another bad idea is to have a unicameral legislature instead of continuing with our bicameral one. With only one house, bad bills can fly through much faster and with less opposition! What a crazy idea, especially when many legislators vote for bills that they have not yet read! It is also unclear, just how far this Constitutional Convention can go! Like what else can some very radical and uncontrolled delegates (who can change our state government) do to us! Therefore, we at U.O.T. strongly recommend that all of our members and friends refuse to sign any initiative that calls for a Constitutional Convention in the first place! It will be a lot cheaper and easier to have such an initiative fail to qualify on our ballot that to fight them after it gets on the ballot and then have to organize and finance an expensive campaign to defeat it!
Very good news - This initiative failed to get enough signatures
to qualify for the ballot because many voters refused to sign it!
Important Reasons Why We Must Avoid a Constitutional Convention
By Elliott Graham, Founder and Chairman of C.U.A.C.C.
(Constitutionists United Against a Constitutional Convention)
Here is my speech at the July 3rd Glendale Area Independence Day Tea Party: The main reason why we are living in a free country is because our founding fathers who wrote our Constitution gave us a limited government Constitutional Republic that limits the powers of government and with the ï¿½Bill of Rightsï¿½ also protects individuals and free and sovereign states from domination by an all powerful federal government. On Independence Day, the Anniversary of our Declaration of Independence, we are celebrating our divorce from a powerful government on the other side of the ocean that tried to over tax and disarm us just like our too powerful federal government is trying to do today. The Declaration of Independence and our United States Constitution that contains these articles of freedom for all individuals are more than just documents, they are also a sacred contract, just like a real marriage, a marriage that is between we, the people and our public servants that make up our government. The Bill of Rights guarantees our freedom of speech and the right to worship as we please, the right to keep and bear arms, which is an individual right and not just a collective right for the government, the right to privacy, and all of the other important rights that are stated in our Bill of Rights including the 10th Amendment that says that: ïf we forgot anything, government can not do that either. Not only should we celebrate, ï¿½Independence Dayï¿½ but also ï¿½Bill of Rights Dayï¿½ on the 15th of December, when our Bill of Rights was ratified. That is our wedding anniversary of constitutional limited government when we became a Constitutional Republic that protects our God given inalienable rights. The biggest of all of the lies that I have ever heard is that a Constitutional Convention, which I call the Con-Con for short, and it can not be limited to a single issueï which it can not and therefore a probable ï¿½runawayï¿½ ï¿½Con-Conï¿½ is the most likely result of such a convention. Too lose such important legal documents as these will mean that we will no longer have a limited government constitutional republic and it would be a divorce from freedom. This is the main reason why many states that have had resolutions that call for a con-con are recinding (repealing) their previous call for a con-con because they now know that Delegates to such a convention can and most likely will rewrite our entire constitution. Please look at our website: noconcon.com and read about all of the reasons why we absolutely must oppose any attempt what so ever to have a con-con, including the resolutions of state legislatures that are currently rescinding the con-con. This website also names important organizations and distinguished individuals, including Justices on our Supreme Court that have opposed the Con-Con and their reasons why. If members of Congress choose the Delegates, they may most likely sell Delegate seats to the highest bidders, such as those who belong the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Builderburgers and agencies of the United Nations. Now I ask you which do you prefer: The original U.S. Constitution written by our founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson that protects our rights or a new constitution that most likely will be written by such elitist billionaires as George Soros, David Rockefeller, Former Presidents Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, the Bushes and all of the others who consider themselves to be ï¿½Citizens of the Worldï¿½ who would like to take away our freedom in favor of an all powerful United Nations World Government that only grants special privileges to their special elitist friends instead of the rights of all of us. For all those who work to protect our gun rights; how can we continue to argue that this is a right protected by the Second Amendment if this right is abolished and then no longer exists? What will happen if we no longer have a First Amendment which protects our freedom of speech and where to pray and the what about those like me who blog on the internet or who just want to express an opinion? Another very bad idea is now one to have a California State Constitutional Convention for the purpose of changing our State Constitution, if that happens then we will lose a great constitution that contains our right to petition for initiatives or a referendum initiated by we, the people. It isnï¿½t just about some sore losers who opposed Proposition 8, it could also cause us to lose the Proposition 13 protections causing many of us to lose our homes, if we can no longer afford to pay much higher property taxes. At least with the income tax, those who have lost their jobs and no longer have an income donï¿½t have to pay that tax, but what about property that we own and which government should not own, why do we have to lose that? With a re-write of our stateï¿½s constitution, they could and most likely would eliminate the 2/3rd s safety majority margin that protects taxpayers in all of the other areas of taxes, thereby making socialist California too expensive to live here! These are the main reasons why ï¿½The United Organizations of Taxpayersï¿½ that was headed up by Howard Jarvis is totally opposed to any initiative to have a California Constitutional Convention! Yes, there is an attempt to qualify an initiative that will place a call for a California State Constitutional Convention on our ballot at a special election that will take place shortly after they get the required number of signatures and guess where the author of the California Con-Con Initiative is from? He is from San Francisco, that left wing sanctuary city that is home to Nancy Pelosi, Mayor Gavin Newsome and Senator Diane Feinstein and he wants to create an oligarchy where 201 dictators out of 400 delegates will rewrite our California State Constitution their way! The author of this initiative is Paul Currier, a graduate of the University of California in Berkley who majored in Political Science and who was a Community Organizer in the Campaign to Elect Barack Obama. Perhaps such organizations as ï¿½ACORNï¿½ will help him gather enough signatures to qualify this initiative and nominate delegates. Governor Schwarzenegger who wants this, even suggests that voters should no longer vote for the offices or Treasurer and Controller as if we, The people are the problem and not our elected government officials! Who works for whom? If you employed servants who try to become your boss, wouldnï¿½t you fire them? This is why I vote against the incumbents and always hope that new challengers win! Therefore, we must tell every registered voter that we know, NOT to sign any Initiative that would place this on the ballot and nip it in the bud BEFORE it gets placed on our ballot and before a multi-million dollar campaign promotes it! The best way to defeat this plan is to make sure that it does not get enough signatures to qualify by getting everyone to refuse to sign either of these two petitions in the first place! This is what I call: Signing our freedom away! and if a California Constitutional Convention abolishes the initiative and referendum process, there will be no way to ever repeal these acts! Therefore, if you see any signature gatherers here or at any other Tea Party or Freedom Rally, please ask them to leave because these Freedom Destroyers are certainly not welcome here!
Please read this article in the New American magazine:
See this informative website:
Beware of any new amendments to our Constitution!
Please read this excellent article
by Bernardine Smith of the
Second Amendment Committee:
Additional comments by Elliott Graham of
Constitutionists United Against a Con Con:
While I believe in the sanctity of Holy Matrimony and that marriage can only exist between a man and a women, please do not be deceived into falling for any trick that may cause us to lose our soveriegnty and Constitutional form of limited government.
I believe that the main reason why President Bush is promoting a constitutional amendment to define marriage as only between a man and a woman is to trick religious conservatives into falling for a "Con-Con" (Constitutional Convention)!I
Now that the U.S. Senate has voted against it, Bush and his phony conservative "Con-Con" Artists) will try to achieve this by the other means: A Constitutional Convention! Then their goal to establish a "New World Order" can be achieved simply by re-writing a New Constitution that will eliminate our "Bill of Rights", our national sovereignty and by having a Constitution that is newer that the U.N. Charter and which will authorize an international socialist world government under the United Nations!
This can be achieved by manipulating the emotional hot buttons of fools that are not aware of such trickery! Beware of any and all constitutional amendments including a pro-life amendment because a run-away con-con will make America as we know it disappear!
Therefore, we must oppose this idea now, before this becomes a dangerous threat to our constitution and our constitutionally protected freedom!
Sincerely yours for our Constitutional Republic,
Chairman, Constitutionists United Against a Constitutional Convention
Important Warning About Another
"CON-CON" from the 2008 Constitution Party
Presidential Nominee Chuck Baldwin
Please click onto this link:
For information about the 3 country merger, please click on to this website:
GOOD NEWS, Another State: Arkansas!,
Arkansas State Representative Hobbs introduces HCR 1022 to recind the Arkansas Con-Con Call.
Please get every State Representative and State Senator to Co-Sponsor, Support and Vote for this very important resolution!
*MBM222* 03-24-2009 09:23 MBM222
1 State of Arkansas As Engrossed: H3/24/09 2 87th General Assembly 3 Regular Session, 2009 HCR 1022 4 5 By: Representative Hobbs 6 By: Senator Altes 7 8 9 HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 10 TO RESCIND THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION BY THE 11 GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED 12 STATES THAT IT CALL A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 13 TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION TO 14 BALANCE THE PUBLIC DEBT. 15 16 Subtitle 17 TO RESCIND THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION BY 18 THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO THE CONGRESS OF 19 THE UNITED STATES THAT IT CALL A 20 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION TO PROPOSE AN 21 AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION TO BALANCE 22 THE PUBLIC DEBT. 23 24 25 WHEREAS, under Article V of the Constitution of the United States, 26 amendments to the Federal Constitution may be proposed by the Congress 27 whenever two-thirds of both Houses deem it necessary, or on the application 28 of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, the Congress shall 29 call a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of proposing amendments; and 30 31 WHEREAS, by House Joint Resolution 1, adopted by the House of 32 Representatives on January 9, 1979, and adopted by the Senate on January 17, 33 1979, and again on January 22, 1979, after the previous vote was expunged, 34 the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas requested the Congress of the 35 United States to prepare and submit to the several states an amendment to the 36 Constitution of the United States requiring, in the absence of a national As Engrossed: H3/24/09 HCR1022 2 03-24-2009 09:23 MBM222 emergency, that t 1 he total of all federal appropriations made by Congress for 2 any fiscal year may not exceed the total of all estimated federal revenues 3 for that fiscal year, or alternatively, the General Assembly made application 4 and requested the Congress of the United States to call a Constitutional 5 Convention for the purpose of proposing such an amendment to the federal 6 Constitution; and 7 8 WHEREAS, many legal experts believe that a convention, notwithstanding 9 whatever limitation might be placed upon it by the call of said convention, 10 would have within the scope of its authority the complete redrafting of the 11 Constitution of the United States, thereby creating a great danger to the 12 well-established rights of our people and to the constitutional principles 13 under which we are presently governed; and 14 15 WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States has been extensively 16 interpreted and has proven to be a basically sound document which protects 17 the freedom of all Americans; and 18 19 WHEREAS, there is no need for a new constitution, the adoption of which 20 would create legal chaos in America and only begin the process of another two 21 centuries of litigation over its interpretation by the courts; and 22 23 WHEREAS, such changes as may be needed in the present Constitution of 24 the United States may be proposed and enacted by the well-established methods 25 of amendment contained therein, 26 27 NOW THEREFORE, 28 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE EIGHTY-SEVENTH GENERAL 29 ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS, THE SENATE CONCURRING THEREIN: 30 31 THAT the General Assembly does hereby rescind its application to the 32 Congress of the United States made by the General Assembly in 1979 by House 33 Joint Resolution 1 pursuant to Article V of the Constitution of the United 34 States for the calling of a constitutional convention for any purpose, 35 limited or general. 36 As Engrossed: H3/24/09 HCR1022 3 03-24-2009 09:23 MBM222 BE IT FURTHER 1 RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be sent to the members 2 of the Arkansas Congressional Delegation, the Clerk of the United States 3 House of Representatives, and the Secretary of the United States Senate with 4 the request that this action by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas 5 be promptly published in the Congressional Record. 6 7 8 9 /s/ Hobbs 10
What will Congress Give Away Next?
By Elliott Graham, Congressional Nominee, 26th District of California
Remember when President Jimmy Carter, the first Trilateral Commission, U.S. President gave away our canal to the Government of Panama and we were very surprised when 68 (one more than needed) United States Senators voted to give the property of We, the American People away!
It was estimated that 85% of the American People were opposed to this give away, which made it most obvious that the big special interests, including the big multi-national corporations and the radical tax exempt foundations have more influence on them than do the majority of the voters!
Most people have been opposed to the federal income tax, the I.R.S., Illegal Immigration, Amnesty, Foreign Aid giveaways and a whole lot more, but those who have the dollars always win!
It is because they know that most voters and ignorant enough to keep on voting for the well financed incumbents, instead of the under financed challengers!
Now, we have a new threat, these well finance incumbents, especially those who are members of the Council on Foreign Relations and/or the Trilateral Commission are now planning to give away our entire nation to Canada and Mexico!
Of course, it wonï¿½t stop there, because, the original plan is to merge all countries in our planet into a United Nations world government!
So, far we have stopped them from re-writing our United States Constitution by avoiding that proposed run-away Constitutional Convention for Interdependence!
Now, more than ever we must: Get US Out of the United Nations and we must defeat these powerful incumbent politicians (like time bombs set to go off) before they vote to merge our 3 North American countries into a North American Union!
The best ï¿½ounce of prevention that is worth a pound of cureï¿½ is to vote these one world traitors out of office before this can happen!
PRINT above article on 3 nation merger
To learn more about the SPP and the NUA, watch this Conservative Caucus
Video with its Founder Howard Phillips interviewing author Jerome Corsi.
PRINT out our No Con Con cards, visitwebsite.htm
Always beware of any and all proposed
amendments to our United States Constitution!
We predict that the politicians and the media will again appeal to the
emotional "hot buttons" of the voters by proposing an amendment to
our U.S. Constitution to deny citizenship of the "anchor babies" that
were born of illegal alien parents. They will use this as an excuse
to have a Constitutional Convention to destroy our Constitutional
form of limited government and force us all to be "citizens of the world"!
Did you know that the law that allows babies to have automatic
citizenship was passed by a simple act of Congress and that
no constitutional amendment is necessary, because that
legislation can also be repealed by Congress as well!
So, why doesn't our U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senators
in Congress do this? It is because they are controlled by
the special interest lobbiests and the big corporate
contributors instead of we the people!
Warning: Beware of Senator Orrin Hatch's "Con-Con" Tricks
The Senator from Utah who wants to have a CONstitutional CONvention is up to his usual dirty tricks again. This time he wants to appeal to patriots who want to protect the American Flag by having a constitutional amendment to prevent flag burning.
Did you know that, if your flag was eaten by moths or badly stained or torn, then the proper way to dispose of it, is to burn it privately in your own fireplace?
Would you want to put a person in jail for eliminating an unsightly or unacceptable flag? and Is your flag worth the risk of having our United States Constitution re-written and then lose all of our constitutional rights to a run-a-way "con-con" and to a one world socialist dictatorship!
Please read this very informative article from the
New American Magazine:
|Con-con Movement Returns
by George Detweiler
September 4, 2006
Some proponents of a federal constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage are considering calling for a dangerous constitutional convention to accomplish their goal.
George Detweiler is a constitutional lawyer and former assistant attorney general for the state of Idaho.
They're baaack ï¿½ those pesky advocates of a constitutional convention. Following defeat of a federal constitutional amendment in the U.S. Senate to define marriage exclusively as a union of one man and one woman, talk began to circulate favoring a constitutional convention to accomplish the task. Leading the charge by convention advocates are Princeton Professor Robby George, Chuck Donovan of the Family Research Council, Frank Cannon, and Tony Perkins. Most convention proponents operate in oblivion of the dangers inherent in the convention process. Their focus is upon the remedy they seek for the perceived need, be it a marriage amendment, a balanced federal budget, a ban on flag burning, legislative reapportionment, or other items which have appeared on the shopping list of convention advocates over the decades.
Article V of the Constitution contains the procedure for amending that document: "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."
Perils of a Constitutional Convention
Amendments are proposed either by Congress or by a convention called for that purpose by the action of two-thirds (34) of the legislatures of the states. The danger of using the latter process is that there is no effective way to control the convention once it begins its work. If a convention were called for the sole and exclusive purpose of proposing a definition-of-marriage amendment, the convention would be able to propose any kind and number of amendments it might choose; it could also utterly ignore the marriage amendment issue. Any topic would be on the table. It could change the republic into a monarchy, ridiculous as that suggestion sounds. It could formally place the United States under the total power of the UN. It could abolish the states. The only limits on the convention are in the minds of the delegates ï¿½ self-restraint, which is no restraint at all. The point is universally lost on single-issue convention seekers, who fail to look, and therefore cannot see, beyond their own limited agendas.
A majority of the judges and scholars who have opined on the subject have declared that restraints and limitations contained in the resolutions of state legislatures which apply to Congress to call a convention are unenforceable and of no effect whatever. A legislative application for a convention for the sole purpose of securing a marriage amendment is treated as an application without limitation, thus ignoring the marriage amendment issue. The late Chief Justice of the United States, Warren Burger, wrote in a private letter in 1988:
I have also repeatedly given my opinion that 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. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don't like its agenda.... A new Convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on the subjects needing attention. I have discouraged the idea of a Constitutional Convention, and I am glad to see states rescinding their previous resolutions requesting a Convention. In these [constitutional] Bicentennial years, we should be celebrating [the republic's] long life, not challenging its very existence.
Of like opinion was the late Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Arthur Goldberg, writing an op-ed piece for the Miami Herald in 1986:
A few people have asked, "Why not another constitutional convention?"
... One of the most serious problems Article V poses is a runaway convention. There is no enforceable mechanism to prevent a convention from reporting out wholesale changes to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Moreover, the absence of any mechanism to ensure representative selection of delegates could put a runaway convention in the hands of single-issue groups whose self-interest may be contrary to our national well-being.
Professor Christopher Brown, University of Maryland School of Law, wrote in 1991 in response to an inquiry into the effect of Article V in the context of the movement for a convention for a balanced federal budget amendment: "After 34 states have issued their call, Congress must call 'a convention for proposing amendments.' In my view the plurality of 'amendments' opens the door to constitutional change far beyond merely requiring a balanced federal budget."
Article V also requires that all amendments, whether proposed by Congress or a convention, become part of the Constitution only when ratified by three-fourths (38) of the states. Proponents of constitutional conventions point to the fact that 13 states can block bad amendments merely by withholding ratification. It is not quite that simple. First, truly bad amendments, those dismantling the Constitution and its most basic provisions, are the province of insiders ï¿½ those ultimately seeking to place this nation under formal control of unelected bureaucrats and to dismantle the safeguards of liberty found in federalism and the Bill of Rights. They would use media hype and spin to its full advantage in pressing for ratification of radical amendments. Second, the ratification process is a protection against bad amendments only if the convention does not fiddle with the ratification process.
Law of the Land Ignored Once Before
A similar situation arose as America replaced the Articles of Confederation with the present Constitution. The nation technically continued to operate under the Articles of Confederation until the Constitution was ratified. Article X of the Confederation document required that all Alterations (its term for amendments) had to be ratified first by Congress and then by all of the states.
As the work of the constitutional convention of 1787 was concluded, the Founding Fathers were aware that the political climate of the day was not solidly enough behind the new Constitution to secure such unanimous approval. Their remedy was simply to ignore the law of the land ï¿½ Article X of the Articles of Confederation ï¿½ and provide a new plan for ratification. They added Article VII to the new Constitution, which allowed it to go into effect upon approval of nine states. Non-ratifying states were left out in the cold as individual "nations." Realizing this, the last four states ratified quickly once the first nine had done so.
The strategy worked, and we gained a superb Constitution in the process. But it was done in defiance of the existing law, which required Alterations to the Articles to be ratified by Congress and all states. What is the lesson? The rules of ratification were illegally, but effectively, changed once in our history. Can anyone confidently declare that it could never happen again?
Are There Safe and Effective Remedies?
Jurisdictions of federal courts are under the control of Congress. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution empowers Congress to provide exceptions to, and regulations of, the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. All inferior federal courts are created by act of Congress, which has complete control over their jurisdictions. Congress can remove from their jurisdictions any authority to hear and determine cases involving same-sex "marriage" issues and further deny to them authority to consider cases in which a same-sex "marriage" performed in one state is denied "full faith and credit" in another state. Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution requires all states to give full faith and credit to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of sister states. Though the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution was written in a manner to protect a state from having another state's laws ï¿½ such as a same-sex "marriage" law ï¿½ forced upon it, activist courts have previously ignored the intent of the Constitution to fulfill a political agenda. By controlling the jurisdiction of the federal courts, the danger of history repeating itself is nullified.
It is not a complete remedy; individual states would remain free to allow such marriages if they choose to do so. This may not be a tolerable result for those seeking the marriage amendment constitutional convention. It does, however, provide a large measure of protection from federal intervention. Anyone interested in protecting the sanctity of traditional marriage should contact both of his U.S. senators and his congressman to ask their sponsorship and support for legislation enforcing the Article III, Section 2 power of Congress to remove the definition of marriage from the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and to remove it from the jurisdictions of all other federal courts.
Additional Danger of a New Amendment
There is an additional cost to placing the definition of marriage under federal control, as a constitutional amendment would do. A disturbing trend records the steady flow of power toward the federal level at the expense of the states. As Congress, the executive branch, and the courts amass powers unto themselves, the states have shrunk in importance to Dickens-like caricatures of their former selves. A federal constitutional amendment defining marriage would transfer yet another traditional state power and prerogative into federal hands. States can ill afford such a loss and yet continue to maintain a viable level of the dual sovereignties which define federalism. The number of states which embrace same-sex "marriage" is very small, and with diligence, their citizens can reclaim exclusive traditional marriages. But once more power is lost to the federal government, it is inexorably gone.
Protection against a constitutional convention will not be gained until all existing applications calling for a convention are rescinded. It is a slow, laborious process that is accomplished state by state, yet it can and must be done.
| ï¿½ Copyright 2005 American Opinion Publishing Incorporated
Now that we know about the plan to merge the United States with Mexico and Canada, I believe that a planned run-away Constitution Convention will be used to achieve the goals of the one world globalist traitors!
More information on the North American Union and
Things To Think About...
"Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the
United States as our Fathers made it inviolate. The people of the
United States are the rightful masters of both Congress
and the Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution,
but to overthrow the men who pervert
the Constitution" ...
Note: If you wish to add a friends name to my email list (or remove your name from my email list),
please click on the following and let me know...
Are You Ready For The "North American Union"?...
The Following Was Taken From...
"Pursuing the 'North American' Agenda"
The Phyllis Schlafly Report of September 2006
with government and business groups in the three countries.
For more on this "Phyllis Schlafly Report" (Eagle Forum) click on the following...
For All You Want To know about the "North American Union"...
("Eagle Forum" will tell you)... Click On The Following...
To Find Out More About The "Eagle Forum", Click on the Following...
"Eagle Forum has set a high standard of volunteer participation in the political and legislative process....
You've been out front on so many of the most important issues of our time.... Your work is an
example to all those who would struggle for an America that is prosperous and free....
Our nation needs the kind of dedicated individual volunteer service you and
Eagle Forum have demonstrated over the last 20 years.... God bless
all of you for your dedication to God, Family, and Country. "
President Ronald Reagan
PRINT the above 3 pages
PRINT the September 2006 Phyllis Schlafly Report
If the Republicrat/Demopublicans refuse
to STOP the S.P.P. and N.A.U., then we
will need to consider another alternative!
Watch this video to see who are behind these acts of treason!
Attention: California Voters Please do NOT sign away your freedom!
Do not be fooled into believing that a Constitutional Convention is "good"!
You have our permission to reproduce this resolution that was passed unanimously by all members of the Los Angeles County Central Committee of the American Independent Party on the 2nd of July, 2009 and you may introduce this resolution at your next meeting of your political party or organization:
(This resolution appears on these websites: www.vacat.us and www.elliottgraham.com)
WHEREAS: Two initiatives are currently being introduced to call for a constitutional convention to rewrite our entire California Constitution.
WHEREAS: A simple majority of 201 out of 400 delegates can completely change any and all articles to our stateï¿½s constitution as they want to and without any ï¿½checks or balances.ï¿½
WHEREAS: With the current state deficits, public employee unions and other special interest demands from lobbyists and pressure groups that want to increase our taxes, such a convention will most likely eliminate such property tax protections as Proposition 13 by Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann and the 2/3rds safety net required to raise our taxes.
WHEREAS: Such a convention may eliminate our initiative and referendum process where we, the people could correct problems that were created by our legislature and without this ability of we, the people to continue to have this process, bad new articles or amendments can no longer be repealed by a vote of the people.
WHEREAS: Socialist welfare policies and huge tax increases will cause many businesses and residents to leave this state simply because it will be too expensive to continue living in California.
Therefore, be it RESOLVED that: The American Independent Party of Los Angeles County OPPOSES both of these initiatives that call for a California Constitutional Convention and we urge all voters to refuse to sign any petitions that would place these propositions on our ballot.
Respectfully submitted by Elliott Graham on the 2nd of July, 2009 Vice Chairman, Los Angeles County Central Committee of the American Independent Party, Founder and Chairman of Constitutionists United Against a Constitutional Convention and Vice President of the United Organizations of Taxpayers
See what taxpayers have to say about a ï¿½Con-Conï¿½!
DO NOT SIGN AWAY YOUR HOMES AND PROPERTY!
Your Vice Presidents Outlook by Elliott Graham
(Elliott Graham is Vice President of the United Organizations of Taxpayers)
The big tax and spenders who hate Proposition 13 that we, including Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann, worked so hard to achieve, have figured our a way to undo everything that we have achieved to limit our property taxes and our two thirds majority safety net needed to raise our taxes!
Because, we have limited what the Legislature and a simple majority of voters can do to us, they have come up with the idea of having a ï¿½California State Constitutional Conventionï¿½ call for a statewide constitutional convention that would rewrite our stateï¿½s constitution!
By doing this, their Delegates will be able to throw out any and all articles or amendments that they want to remove, such as Proposition 13 and the two-thirds rule that we have enjoyed for all of these years!
It has also been suggested that We, the People (voters) no longer elect our State Treasurer or our stateï¿½s Controller by having these financial officers appointed instead of being elected!
Another bad idea is to have a unicameral legislature instead of continuing with our bicameral one. With only one house, bad bills can fly through much faster and with less opposition! What a crazy idea, especially when many legislators vote for bills that they have not yet read!
It is also unclear, just how far this Constitutional Convention can go! Like what else can some very radical and uncontrolled delegates (who can change our state government) do to us!
Therefore, we at U.O.T. strongly recommend that all of our members and friends refuse to sign any initiative that calls for a Constitutional Convention in the first place!
It will be a lot cheaper and easier to have such an initiative fail to qualify on our ballot that to fight them after it gets on the ballot and then have to organize and finance an expensive campaign to defeat it!
For more information on how to save our precious freedom
you may visit Elliott Graham's other websites at:
Voters Against Corruption and Tyranny
PRINT announcement of vacat.us
to FAX to your friends.
Here are some other good constitutional websites to visit:
If we ever have a Constitutional Convention, we can lose our
"Bill of Rights", including the Second Amendment, and if
we lose that and then no longer have personal firearms and
we may lose everything, including our very own lives!
Guess What Happens Next After Gun Prohibition?
(What the biased left news media does not tell us.)
By Elliott Graham, Defender of the Second Amendment.
As we all know the first step is registration and registration is designed to provide the government with a list of gun owners so that they can proceed to the next step which is confiscation.
Instead of banning all guns outright, the government will try to license your personal firearms thereby converting our right into a government granted privilege and if they do that they will make it very difficult to obtain that license.
If you do not have the gun license granted to you then they will demand that you turn in your guns during a special amnesty period. When that amnesty period expires, they will begin confiscating your firearms!
If this happens, we will lose much more than just a hobby! We will lose our freedom, our safety and our lives!
Here is what has happened to the many foolish citizens who put all of their trust in their own government throughout the world:
In 1911, Turkey imposed gun prohibitions and only four years later, in 1915, the Turkish government killed one and a half million disarmed Armenians!
In 1935, the Soviet Union and the Peopleï¿½s Republic of China banned firearms in these two communist countries and only a few years later (from 1948 to 1952), fifty million dissidents who were defenseless were murdered making the Communist Genocide the largest Halocoust!
In Germany, history repeated itself again. They exterminated six million unarmed Jews and many other disarmed people including Gypsies, "mixed bloods" and other so-called: "undesirables" and many Christian friends who tried to save them bringing that number to as high as 13 million!
In 1956, Cambodia established gun control and again only a few years later (from 1975 to 1977) the Cambodian government murdered a million of their own citizens!
In 1964, Guatemala began gun control and that very same year they began killing unarmed Mayan Indians of which more that 100 thousand died by 1981!
In 1970, Uganda murdered 300 thousand Indians and Christians from 1971 to 1979, beginning only one year after prohibiting personal firearms!
Therefore a CONstitutional CONvention will not only cost us to lose our right to have a gun, but even our right to live as in mass genocide! or else to become a slave of a global totalitarian government!
Our nations founding fathers warned us that: "Those who do not learn from the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it!"
PRINT article: Guess What happens next aftergunprohibition.htm ?
A merger with Canada and Mexico that both restrict gun ownership will cause
the complete elimination of our Second Amendment and gun ownership!
For additional information, please visit this website:
A Constitutional Convention will
cause us to lose our most precious
"Bill of Rights"!
The British who experianced Gun Control now warn us that
what happened there will soon happen here! See this video:
Did you know that a New Constitution has already
been written to replace our U. S. Constitution?
Please visit this website to learn more:
The Internet. Use it, before we lose it!
By Elliott Graham, Webmaster of four different websites.
Already, the establishment that controls most of the media, including radio, television, newspapers, and magazines wants to get their political puppets in Congress to control the internet.
It is the same media that tried to silence United States Representatives Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter.
I believe that the main reason why Ron Paul did so much better than the efforts of both Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter combined was that Dr. Paul and his supporters made good use of the Internet.
As you know, most of the younger generation are very computer literate and are ï¿½on lineï¿½ and many of them have also created their own websites to spread the word about the Presidential Candidacy of Ron Paul.
This is what helped Ron Paul in becoming one of the 4 finalists out of 12 Presidential Candidates and believe it or not, Dr. Paul polled 2nd place in Nevada and perhaps 2 other states.
If everyone gets ï¿½on lineï¿½ and ï¿½blogsï¿½ on the Internet, uses ï¿½Twitterï¿½, ï¿½You -Tubeï¿½ and ï¿½Facebookï¿½ and spreads the word before the next election, we can WIN in 2010!
But, we absolutely must do it now! We must not wait until the ï¿½Big Government Establishmentï¿½ shuts us down!
They can regulate us, tax us, censure us or simply outlaw this valuable ï¿½Freedom of Speech Toolï¿½!
When the media and their controlled politicians call us names and discredit us, we are not allowed to participate in any meaningful debates.
Therefore, the only way that we can fight back and defend ourselves in by going ï¿½On Lineï¿½ on the internet.
In 2010, we must show them, ï¿½Who is their bossï¿½, they are supposed to represent us and not try to become our masters as in ï¿½Who works for whom?ï¿½
If you are getting afraid of government, then it is time to fire the incumbent office holders by replacing them with the challengers.
Therefore, now is the time for all of us to plan ahead and start to spread the word, before we become a totalitarian police state that can no longer be seen nor heard!
Please take a look at my websites, while they are still there: http://www.vacat.us , http://www.elliottgraham.com and http://www.TheDivineKingdomsHolyChurch.com
The U. S. Constitution Bill of Rights
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Please come back to this website
every month, for current
and future updates.
We should cut or reduce spending and
avoid a “Balanced Budget Amendment”
The problem with trying to get a “Balanced Budget Amendment” is that it can and will provide an excuse to raise our taxes and worse to have a constitutional convention!
Therefore a “Balanced Budget Amendment” should be avoided and re-named: “The Raise Taxes Amendment” or “The Excuse to Have a Constitutional Convention Amendment”.
Instead of having another amendment to our U.S. Constitution, we should have members of Congress sign a “PLEDGE” with a penalty of perjury clause stating that they will “reduce spending in order to balance the budget without raising our taxes”.
a Constitutional Convention”
GOOD NEWS! The California Constitutional Convention Initiative failed to qualify for the November 2nd General Election Ballot because many smart voters refused to sign these petitions in the first place!
Please read what Bernardine Smith
of the Second Amendment Committee says
about a Constitutional Convention!
More on the Danger of a Constitutional Convention
A constitutional convention or a constitutional amendment are really bad things to support at this point in time. Alan Cranston was always waiting for a chance to get one of the communist world government constitutions enacted via a constitutional convention. He even told that it would be the method necessary to get a world government constitution passed. I believe his statement is in Senate Doc. 87. He wasn't the only one who agreed that it was their only chance to move us out of and away from the 1789 Constitution and Bill of Rights. Cranston had a lot of followers. They were taught the value of such a maneuver to their communist conquest, and have used every excuse in the world to coax us into development of a constitutional convention. First, comes a constitutional "amendment" to soften up the playing field, then switching it over into a constitutional "convention".
The people behind this maneuver are playing on the ignorance of the general public who does not know all the pitfalls, nor the evil intentions of those who are unscrupulous. The enemies of our country greatly desire to open up a constitutional convention as it permits the opening up of the heart of the 1789 Constitution and the Bill of Rights! When this happens, the possibility of bringing in a different constitution to replace the 1789 Constitution and the Bill of Rights exists! They are aware of the rules. They want to replace our rightful 1789 Constitution and our Bill of Rights with one of the communist constitutions they have prepared. Attendees at a constitutional convention cannot be limited as to what they can do. They can even hold the convention in secrecy, behind locked doors to keep the public out.
Globalists will go to great lengths to convert a constitutional "amendment" into a constitutional "convention"! It is just a short step to do so, once all the work of writing out an "amendment" is finalized, and the acquiring number of states necessary to qualify it, has been met.
The members attending a constitutional “convention” do not have to stay with that amendment once they have pulled it under a "convention" procedure. Chief Justice Warren Burger stated that the attendees to the convention cannot be limited as to what they decide to do! The innocent public does not realize these facts.
First. The timing for such a movement is 1000% wrong. Are you aware of what is happening under Obama? Our government is now allowing Chinese communists to enter and dwell on our American soil. They are being allowed to set up communist businesses in the United States, run entirely by communist Chinese! We are providing the land. The United States is peppered throughout - all 50 states - with what they call "Foreign Trade Zones".
For instance, take Boise, Idaho for example. 10,000 - 30,000 acres are being given to the Chinese communists in that area to do business at that site. The designated area will be considered to be "foreign soil". Only communist Chinese will work there. Vicky Davis, who reports on this situation, says they will be allowed to bring in military equipment. I will forward some articles we have been getting from those who are front runners in this discovery. Jane Lesko, one of the foremost people reporting on this situation, has written a number of articles on these “Foreign Trade Zones”. If you intend to download from the Internet the whole list of officially designated Foreign Trade Zones that are being set up all over the United States, be prepared to receive about 40 pages in order to list them all. The United States is peppered with these Chinese communist enclaves. The area they occupy is to be considered foreign soil. Is it safe? What do you think? Why can't the Chinese communists stay working in their own homeland? Who knows what the real reason is behind interweaving the United States with communist China on an economic basis? Is it collateral for the debts we owe them? Will they end up permanently owning the land they acquire now? Are they here for purely economic reasons or could they be soldiers who one day will take off their aprons and put on their soldiers uniforms, (like in the Trojan Horse)? Or are they here to put down any controversy if the world switches to the Chinese dollar? Or if Obama needs help when he signs the Small Arms Treaty and demands that everyone turn in their privately-owned arms? These are the questions that need answering. Surely, someone has to answer for this! We should be concentrating on getting these communist groups out of here, not setting up a procedure by which they can ultimately take us over!
It is unspeakably unwise and dreadfully dangerous to watch this situation inch along so that, with just a little twist put into it, it can be re-arranged and revised to be a “constitutional convention” procedure, which will allow them the option of collapsing the 1789 Constitution and the Bill of Rights, terminating them forever! God forbid! The timing for the ideas listed in the current proposal now circulating and calling for a constitutional “amendment” is the WRONG TIMING!!! We have the wrong people running our government now. The proposal for the constitutional “amendment” currently underway is too late, and is so far down on the list of ‘things that we should do’ – that it would be crazy to succumb to the world government promoters’ tricks. They won’t miss an opportunity to switch a constitutional “amendment” into a "convention". A constitutional "convention" will undoubtedly and inevitably subject us to a hazard that will be instantly fatal! Keep remembering that a “convention” cannot be limited and you cannot sue them for working in secret! Anything can happen! WHY TAKE THE FOOLISH RISK?
Second. What we really need is a National Investigation and Assessment - a true State of the Union disclosure. We have three (at least) major things to complain about as a beginning, which are central and outrageous conditions:
(1) The General and Complete Disarmament Law - signed into law by Kennedy in 1961 (Public Law 87-297) requiring us to give up our guns and give up our total national armed forces (on a permanent basis) to the communists running the United Nations;
(2) The Homeland Security Department which has converted our government system from a republic into requirements necessary for operation of a dictatorship. (We have been revamped so that we are now in accord with military concepts for operation under a world communist system);
(3) Foreign Trade Zones (Trojan horse-like), that allow communists to live inside of our national borders, while at the same time, open and unguarded national borders allow druggies and criminals to enter and destroy our moral fiber.
These three outrageous conditions alone could wipe out the integrity and existence of our proper government. The proposal for a National Investigation and Assessment does not call for a constitutional “convention”. Nor does it call for a constitutional “amendment”. (We have existing laws on sedition!) The right thing to do is to broaden public awareness of what “change” has done to our republic and the threat these "changes" still hold to fully destroy our true heritage: our Constitution and the Bill of Rights! The media does not report the necessary facts. There can be no hope until we get the public media to report on these facts to the people.
Second Amendment Committee P.O. Box 1776 Hanford, California 93232