Monthly Archives: August 2018

Bozell: Social Media Censorship ‘One of the Greatest Threats to Free Speech' in U.S. History

Bozell: Social Media Censorship ‘One of the Greatest Threats to Free Speech’ in U.S. History

By Craig Bannister | August 28, 2018 | 3:01 PM EDT
“This is the most comprehensive report we’ve ever produced – and details, what I believe may be one of the greatest threats to free speech in American history,” Media Research Center (MRC) President Brent Bozell explains in a video highlighting MRC’s study on social media censorship.
“I know that sounds dramatic – but, believe me – what we found really is that disturbing,” Bozell says in a video first released in April introducing MRC’s report,“CENSORED! How Online Media Are Suppressing Conservative Speech.”
“Over the past year, I’ve grown increasing concerned by troubling stories about conservative voices being suppressed on major social media platforms – on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter,” Bozell says, providing examples of how the various social media platforms discriminate:

  • “We found that Facebook’s trending feed has been deliberately hiding conservative content.”
  • “YouTube moderators are removing videos that promote conservative political views.”
  • “Google uses both their search engine and their video site, YouTube, to deliberately and aggressively promote liberal politicians and ideas while muzzling conservative viewpoints.”
  • “Twitter has been the worst place of them all for conservatives, doing things like banning pro-life advertisements while allowing ones from pro-abortion groups.”

Even those who don’t use social media should be alarmed, Bozell warns, since nearly two-thirds of all Americans get their news from social media today.
“That’s why we must fight back,” Bozell says, urging Americans to read and share the report on MRC’s “Conservatives Against Online Censorship” website (

Hannity: Blowing the Bruce Ohr case wide open

We Must Call Them Regressives, Not Progressives

We Must Call Them Regressives, Not Progressives

How stunning that many brilliant conservatives are still calling totalitarian leftists “progressives.”  Their dusty, decrepit, freedom-crushing ideas have failed for over 100 years and caused somewhere between 100 million and 120 million deaths – of their own people. This is progress?
It’s time the pundits of the right stop going meekly along with the rebranding of the deadly Marxist ideology that even today has starving Venezuelans fighting in the street for bread and toilet paper.  Today’s lofty-sounding “progressivism,” socialism and “social justice” has a predictable way of morphing into the repressive, liberty-killing tyranny of enforced groupthink we are seeing in America today and ultimately into a society destroyed.
Webster defines “progressive” as “continuous improvement; the development of an individual or group in a direction considered more beneficial than and superior to the previous level.”  And “regressive” is “characterized by backward reasoning.”
The leftists are actually Regressives, not Progressives. Yet as long as we allow them to get away with calling themselves “progressives” we are letting them claim moral and intellectual superiority over us all.

Latest: A Winning Strategy for Combatting California AB 2943

What pray tell is beneficial or superior about black-clad radicals raging against law and order and the police, raining bricks into storefronts to stop a conservative from speaking, or a has-been “comedian” holding up a fake severed head of the president of the United States?  How “superior” is a black member of Congress demanding that “progressive” flash mobs hunt down conservatives – just like her people were once hunted by the southern Democrats? This is the kind of galloping insanity and vicious oppression that prevails in the vilest dictatorships, not in America. Not until recently.
Those who call themselves progressive are busy replicating the tactics of the most destructive regimes that have ever beset an unfortunate nation. How many schoolkids today, or even college students, know that Nazi stands for the National Socialist German Workers Party and that Hitler and his henchmen were committed far-left government-control socialists, not right-wingers? Like the Nazis enforced the superiority of the German “Master Race” over the Jewish people, the modern regressives elevate the superior “rights” of illegal immigrants over the safety of American citizens and insist that the new “right” of “marriage equality” supersedes our constitutionally protected religious rights. Those who deviate from these regressive policy norms, especially Christians, America-Firsters, and Trump fans, must be punished and made an example of.
Weeks after Colorado Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips won a Supreme Court decision that upheld his refusal six years ago to create a cake celebrating same-sex marriage, he has now been targeted again by a lawsuit from a transgender attorney upset because Phillips also won’t make a transgender cake (don’t ask.) Others such as florists and venue providers whose Biblical beliefs don’t allow them to provide services to same-sex marriages are also suffering long court battles. Many are facing bankruptcy and loss of their businesses. Former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich is another whose career was damaged when he was forced out of his job for supporting traditional marriage. This is how the Nazis first targeted the Jews – destroying their livelihoods by warning customers not to patronize their shops.
Intimidation, thuggery and mob violence are other old-time leftist methods used by today’s regressives. Screaming insults and obscenities, they harassed Sarah Huckabee Sanders and her family, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, and Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, driving them from public places.
The radical regressive socialists, just like the Communists, are determined to end capitalism. They want to replace the system that has elevated more people from poverty to prosperity than any other in the world with the foundational Marxist program: “the dictatorship of the proletariat” – that is, putting the working class in control. Senator and wanna-be president Elizabeth Warren has stepped into the way-back machine to nudge this Marxist/communist goal along, introducing a bill in Congress called the Accountable Capitalism Act. We’ve got multitudes of laws, bureaucratic rules and restraints on capitalism, so many that even ardent price-fixer FDR may have said enough already. But not enough for Warren.
Her bill would create an Office of United States Corporations that would require any company with revenue over $1 billion to obtain a federal charter, binding company directors to “consider the interests of all corporate stakeholders — including employees, customers, shareholders, and the communities in which the company operates.” The bill also requires 40 percent of a chartered company’s directors to be selected by employees and puts restrictions on executive pay. A National Review article by Samuel Hammond notes that “the U.S. is home to 64 percent of the world’s billion dollar privately held companies and a plurality of the world’s billion-dollar start-ups.”  So this law would enmesh most of our corporations.
Warren’s scheme would give the government power to decide whether a corporation could actually exist.  It would forbid entrepreneurs the government power brokers didn’t like from starting companies.Who do you think that would be?  Obama’s IRS showed what happens when the government targets its enemies such as the conservative Tea Parties for reprisal. If the government out of its benevolence would allow a corporation to live and not die, Warren’s bill would rob the shareholders whose investments fund the company of their ability to elect the governing board.
Hammonds’ piece quotes the business ethicist Kenneth Goodpaster who once observed that simply multiplying the number of stakeholders “blurs traditional goals in terms of entrepreneurial risk-taking, pushes decision-making towards paralysis because of the dilemmas posed by divided loyalties and, in the final analysis, represents nothing less than the conversion of the modern private corporation into a public institution.” Which is what the socialists/Marxists/Regressives want.
The Democrats’ new socialist heroine, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, as a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is singing the same song as Warren and it’s the Internationale.  The offspring of the Socialist Party of America and the Communist Party of America (CPA) that ran Communist Gus Hall for president forever, the SDA, notes Vox, “believes the government should ‘democratize’ private businesses – i.e., force owners to give workers control of them – to the greatest extent possible…the DSA tries to work within the Democratic Party to weaken capitalism.” And guess what, the SDA is a tax-free 501 (c ) 4 – of course!
And here’s another important way the regressives are mimicking Marxists: just like the Chinese Communists in their horrific decade of “cultural revolution” they want to erase the past. As part of the chaos unleashed by Mao to solidify his power, historical monuments and relics were demolished and cultural and religious sites were destroyed. Today radicals pull down statues of Confederate officers, agitate to change the names of towns, buildings and streets if they reflect ideas or people the radicals don’t like.
It’s time we called these those who want to impose on America the dark, tyrannical past that denied individual liberty to millions what they are. They are Regressives.
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.

The Media’s Coverage Of Pope Francis' Alleged Sex Abuse Cover-Up Is Insanely Despicable

The Media’s Coverage Of Pope Francis’ Alleged Sex Abuse Cover-Up Is Insanely Despicable

ByBen Shapiro @benshapiro
Pope Francis attends a prayer vigil with Italian young people, at Circus Maximus, on August 11, 2018 in Rome, Italy. There are now credible allegations that Pope Francis knew all about sexual misconduct allegations regarding disgraced Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, and that he attempted to cover them up and restore McCarrick to a public position. Those allegations, originally aired publicly by Cardinal Carlo Maria Vigano, have been supported by a variety of sources including the state attorney in Pennsylvania, who says the Vatican was aware of local abuses for years.
Now, you’d imagine that the media would be all over these allegations. After all, the media coverage of Boston archdiocese sexual abuse made headlines the world over, and became such a glorious moment for the press that it won them an Oscar in Spotlight. But instead of tracking down Francis and his acolytes for answers on whether the church looked the other way regarding both homosexual activity within the church and abuse of minors, the media have rushed to Francis’ defense. Why? Because Francis is widely perceived to share Leftist sensibilities regarding issues like climate change, illegal immigration, and homosexuality.
That’s why Cardinal Blaise Cupich hasn’t been run out of town on a rail for openly stating that “The Pope has a bigger agenda. He’s got to get on with other things, of talking about the environment and protecting migrants and carrying on the work of the church. We’re not going to go down a rabbit hole on this.” The media believe, like Cupich, that the abuse of children is of lower priority than climate change and illegal immigration. Furthermore, they fear that focus will be placed on a homosexual subculture within the church, some of whose participants have been linked with molestation; victims of church abuse have been disproportionately male, as Professor Katherine van Wormer wrote in 2010 at Psychology Today, “Outside of the Catholic Church, the overwhelming numbers of juvenile victims of sexual abuse are female. Within the church, however, four out of five of their victims are male.” That’s not to say that homosexuality is linked with child abuse; the data don’t bear out the idea that self-identified homosexual men are more likely to molest than self-identified heterosexual men. But regardless of all facts, members of the media would rather put children in danger to defend Pope Francis than report the accusations against the Vatican objectively.
This isn’t speculation. The members of the media are openly saying as much.
Take, for example, this headline from The New York Times: “Vatican Power Struggle Bursts Into Open as Conservatives Pounce.”

Tim Carney @TPCarney

Shameful stuff, NYT.

The scandal, you see, isn’t the head of the most powerful religious organization on the planet knowing about and covering for sexual abuses – it’s conservatives within the church calling him on it. Francis’ priorities must be maintained at all costs. The “news” piece opens this way:

Since the start of his papacy, Francis has infuriated Catholic traditionalists as he tries to nurture a more welcoming church and shift it away from culture war issues, whether abortion or homosexuality. “Who am I to judge?” the pope famously said, when asked about gay priests. Just how angry his political and doctrinal enemies are became clear this weekend, when a caustic letter published by the Vatican’s former top diplomat in the United States blamed a “homosexual current” in the Vatican hierarchy for sexual abuse. It called for Francis’ resignation, accusing him of covering up for a disgraced cardinal, Theodore E. McCarrick. With the letter — released in the middle of the pope’s visit to Ireland — an ideologically motivated opposition has weaponized the church’s sex abuse crisis to threaten not only Francis’ agenda but his entire papacy.

Yes, the anger is clearly at Francis’ political positions, not the allegations that he covered for a child molester. Only the leftist press could come up with such a morally obtuse position. But the Left sees Francis as an actual weapon against doctrine within the Church, and so they’ll prop him up no matter the moral consequences. Better to have a Pope who says soft things about homosexual practices than a Pope who stands up to doctrinal abuses, including the abuse of minors, after all. Priorities are priorities.
It’s not just the Times pushing the “conservatives pounce” narrative. It’s Reuters as well. Here was their tweet:

Reuters Top News


Defenders rally around pope, fear conservatives escalating war

Yes, it’s conservatives escalating the war, not the Pope allegedly covering for sexual abuse. If you ever thought the media’s agenda was the protection of kids rather than the promotion of a specific political agenda, you thought wrong.

The Real Enemy of the People: Social Media and Google

The Real Enemy of the People: Social Media and Google

Cover image courtesy of Ben Garrison of GRRRGRAPHICS.COM
By Bob Shanahan
President Donald Trump again went after the liberal internet goliaths of Facebook, Twitter, and Google Tuesday afternoon, saying they are “treading on very, very troubled territory and they have to be careful.”
Trump went on to take direct aim at Google, telling reporters, “Google has really taken advantage of a lot of people and I think that’s a very serious thing and it’s a very serious charge. They better be careful because they can’t do that to people.”
Twitter continues to deny its liberal bias despite its shadow banning and silencing of conservative voices on its platform. The flamingly liberal Facebook did not return requests for comment, hiding behind Zuckerberg’s, “Senator, I’ll have my team get back to you” line. Google grotesquely denies that its search engine results prioritize anti-Trump news articles and restrict conservative publications from the world’s number one internet search company with 72.5 percent of the world’s market share.
As the president tweeted, “In other words, they have it RIGGED, for me & others, so that almost all stories & news is BAD. Fake CNN is prominent. Republican/Conservative & Fair Media is shut out. Republican/Conservative & Fair Media is shut out. Illegal? 96% of results on “Trump News” are from National Left-Wing Media, very dangerous.”

Paula Bolyard of PJ Media, the source of Trump’s 96 percent reference, went out to test the premise that Google censors and hides conservative news on its search engine. What she found confirmed what we have all known for some time. They are silencing conservative viewpoints and elevating liberal news outlets to craft their own narrative and deceive the American public.
She expected to see some skewing of the search results, but she “was not prepared for the blatant prioritization of left-leaning and anti-Trump media outlets.”
On the first page of search results for “Trump news,” no surprise, CNN was at the top with two of the first ten search results. Other liberal rags like CBS, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, Politico, Reuters, and USA Today were also on the first page (though Reuters and USA Today are admittedly closer to the center).  
“Not a single right-leaning site appeared on the first page of search results,” Bolyard writes. But it gets worse.
After she analyzed the first 100 items Google returned from her search for “Trump news,” CNN appeared most frequently with almost twice as many results as The Washington Post, which came in at second. Only The Wall Street Journal (3) and Fox News (2) had results in the top 100. No other conservative-leaning sites were listed outside of these two. Left-leaning sites comprised of 96 percent of the results.
Here are the sites that appeared most frequently in the top 100 results for Bolyard.

Bolyard performed the search many times using different computers registered to different people and Google still returned similar results. While she admits the level of research she performed is by no means scientific, it nevertheless strongly suggests a bias against conservative content.
Google regularly tweaks its secretive algorithm and a website’s daily readers can rise or fall depending on these changes. PJ Media, for example, fell off of Google users’ radars after a May 2017 change to the algorithm and have yet to recover the lost traffic. Other conservative and alternative news sites, like Investment Watch Blog, have reported similar declines in traffic as Facebook, Google, and Twitter continue to censor a point of view they find detestable. And whatever you think about Alex Jones, his removal from YouTube, Facebook, and Apple earlier this month was a frightening attack on free speech during these discouraging times. Google and social media are a politically correct utopian liberal monopoly and they are controlling what information Americans can see. This has to stop and Trump appears more than willing to go after them.
But will he?

This is a very important topic this week as Google, Facebook, and Twitter are all scheduled to testify before Congress next week to discuss censorship and election meddling. Facebook will be summoned to Capitol Hill for the third time in recent months and Google and Twitter will be going for its second. Facebook’s COO Sheryl Sandberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey are confirmed to be attending the hearings.
How could Trump hurt Google?
Antitrust officials in Washington could investigate whether the Mountain View-based company is abusing its market dominance and using its internet search monopoly to suppress certain websites. Republican Congressmen could keep bringing the tech companies’ executives to Washington for more uncomfortable, high-profile hearings, and bad publicity. Or Trump’s accelerating attacks on Google could paint them as a partisan company and which could result in a loss of a sizable chunk of the conservative half of the country, forcing the company to make a financial decision to be more open to adopting a fair and balanced algorithm that lists all points of view.

Who’s Behind a Constitutional Convention?

Wednesday, 29 August 2018

Who’s Behind a Constitutional Convention?

Written by

ConCon Banner
Nearly all conservatives agree that the federal government — under both Democrats and Republicans — continues to grow beyond the limitations set for it in the U.S. Constitution. As part of that overreach, the federal government has been swelling the national debt into the multiple trillions and treading on the rights of the states and of the people for more than a hundred years. The Insider/Internationalist/Big Government/Deep State/Globalist types — having created the problem in the first place — are now busily forming and funding organizations that offer a “solution” in the form of a modern-day constitutional convention that would have the power to rewrite the U.S. Constitution.
They are guilty of what 19th-century French economist Frédéric Bastiat called “concocting the antidote and the poison in the same laboratory.” Having administered a near fatal dose of the poison, they are now pushing slick, well-funded campaigns to sell the antidote. But here is the rub: Administering poison was never the real goal; its purpose was to make the antidote appear attractive.
To many conservatives — tired of seeing the federal government overstep its constitutional boundaries and expand its reach into areas it has no business being — nothing seems more “grassroots” than the idea of calling a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution and rein in said federal government. So it is not surprising that every few years new batches of legislation fly across the desks of state legislators to apply to Congress for such a convention.
Advocates of a constitutional convention (though they almost always refuse to call it that) claim that it is the only solution that will fix the problem. This erroneous argument comes from the self-appointed “leaders” of a push for a constitutional convention and is repeated by well-meaning (but misinformed and manipulated) patriots all across the country. The argument goes, “Article V gives the state legislatures the power to call a convention to rein in an out-of-control federal government. The Founding Fathers gave us this one tool, and it is up to the state legislatures to use it.”
The devil, though, is in the details.
The first — and most obvious — problem with that argument is that Article V does not give state legislatures the power to call a convention. It says, “The Congress … shall call a convention for proposing amendments” subsequent to “the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states.” State legislatures apply for a convention, but Congress calls a convention. Of course, that means that Congress — a branch of the same federal government the advocates of a convention claim the convention would rein in — has the power (according to Article I, Section 8) to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” the convention. That means Congress, not the state legislatures, gets to make the rules for how delegates are chosen, and Congress, not the state legislatures, gets to decide the apportionment of votes. Congress will have much more power over the convention than will the states.
The second — and perhaps equally obvious — problem is that the state legislators who the advocates of a constitutional convention claim are going to save us by way of a convention are themselves complicit in the overreach of the federal government. First, most elected officials at the federal level came up to the “big league” through the “farm team” model of serving either on state legislatures or as governors. It is not as if they are somehow totally different creatures. Second, state legislatures routinely accept unconstitutional federal actions and spending as a normal part of their relationship with the federal government — so long as their state benefits from those unconstitutional actions and spending.
This incestuous relationship between state governments and the federal government does not inspire confidence that state legislators are apt to rein in the federal government. One will never slay a beast while suckling at its teat.
So, to market the idea of a modern-day constitutional convention, the Insider/Internationalist/Big Government/Deep State/Globalist cabal has launched and funded a litany of disingenuous marketing campaigns. These campaigns — promising to solve the problems created by ignoring and refusing to abide by the Constitution — are all based on the erroneous notion that to save the Constitution, America needs to change the Constitution. Completely ignored is the salient fact that unless the Constitution is to blame, changing it is not the answer.

<a href=’’ target=’_blank’><img src=’′ border=’0′ alt=” /></a&aOf course, openly blaming the Constitution would be a self-defeating strategy. Add to that the fact that true patriotic groups —  such as this magazine’s parent organization, The John Birch Society — have spent decades educating and warning people about the dangers of a modern-day constitutional convention, and it becomes apparent why pro-constitutional convention groups deny that what they are pushing for is a constitutional convention to rewrite the Constitution.

Their denials fly in the face of history, logic, and even established definitions. Black’s Law Dictionary is the most widely used law dictionary in the United States and is the reference of choice for terms in legal briefs and court opinions. It has been cited as a secondary legal authority in many U.S. Supreme Court cases. It defines “Constitutional Convention” as “a duly constituted assembly of delegates or representatives of the people of a state or nation for the purpose of framing, revising, or amending its constitution.”
And while the pro-constitutional convention crowd claims there is no danger of a convention rewriting the Constitution, the online version of Black’s Law Dictionary gives the following example of the use of “constitutional convention” in a sentence: “Delegates to the constitutional convention convened in 1787 quickly dispensed with any thoughts of retaining the Articles of Confederation and turned, instead, to the creation of a new Constitution.”
So when the leaders of the organizations pushing for an “Article V Convention,” “Convention of States,” “Amendments Convention,” etc., claim that what they are proposing is something distinct from a constitutional convention, they are being deliberately dishonest. And their dishonesty masks the very real danger that America could lose what liberty she has left by a new convention replacing our current Constitution with one much more to the liking of the people responsible for creating the problem in the first place.
To be clear, this writer wishes to draw a distinction between the “leaders” who practice deceit in their push for a constitutional convention and those who are deceived by them into repeating lies they believe to be true. But ignorance can be as dangerous as dishonesty, and there is far too much at stake here to allow either to take America down this path.
Once one knows (and considers) the players behind the organizations promoting the notion that the Constitution needs to be amended to rein in a federal government that ignores the Constitution, it quickly becomes apparent that the Constitution itself is the real target. So who are those players and how do they fund the organizations pushing for a constitutional convention?
Over the past several years, one of the key organizations at the forefront of the push for a constitutional convention has been the Convention of States. Co-founded by lawyers Michael Farris and Mark Meckler, the Convention of States has gone by various names, including Convention of States Project and Convention of States Action. When Farris left the organization for greener pastures in January 2017, Meckler assumed sole leadership of the organization.
Both Farris and Meckler seem to suffer from the delusion that the best answer to almost any problem is to amend the Constitution. Besides pushing for a “convention of states,” both have backed other dangerous drives to amend the Constitution, including an amendment to grant to the federal government the power to define marriage and a separate amendment to allow it to define parental rights. The Marriage Amendment failed and the Parental Rights Amendment is languishing. It is important to note, though, that the recent decision by the Supreme Court to upend the traditional definition of marriage in favor of “gay marriage” should serve as a strong warning that allowing the federal government to define parental rights would also likely end badly.
As part of its push for a constitutional convention, Meckler’s Convention of States hosted a mock convention in Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia, in September 2016. The mock convention was attended by state legislators from all over the country — with many of them having their expenses covered by the event’s organizers. An article published August 2, 2018 by Time magazine explained:
The mock convention in Virginia was the creation of two nonprofits operated out of the same office suite in Houston, Texas, run by the same man: Mark Meckler, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, an attorney and former Herbalife distributor. The two groups, Citizens for Self-Governance and Convention of States Action, paid at least $130,000 combined for 81 of those lawmakers to attend the trial run. Convention of States Action also promotes model legislation, provides citizen toolkits and lobbies state legislatures to promote a convention of states.
But when asked about the source of the money used to finance the tightly scripted and carefully stage-managed mock convention, the ordinarily verbose Meckler had nothing to say. As Time reported:
Meckler declined to discuss the groups’ finances. But both organizations have been growing financially, albeit from largely secret benefactors, according to their tax records.
Citizens for Self-Governance, also known as the John Hancock Committee for the States, collected more than $4.2 million in 2016, quadrupling its revenue since it began six years earlier. The conservative Mercer family that helped underwrite Donald Trump’s presidential campaign has donated at least $500,000, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of tax records. The Greater Houston Community Foundation, a donor-advised fund that doesn’t need to disclose its funders, has contributed more than $2 million to the nonprofit, too.
Convention of States Action raised just under $122,000 in its first year in 2014, but in 2016 that amount shot up to almost $5 million, in part after one mystery donor gave just under $1.7 million.
With “secret benefactors” funding not only the mock convention but also the expenses of many of the attendees, and Meckler “declin[ing] to discuss the groups’ finances,” there is cause for concern. Add to that secrecy such blatant dishonesty that even Meckler has trouble keeping up with his own spin, and the concern-meter begins to redline.
For example, as might be expected from one who refuses to admit that what he is proposing and advocating is a constitutional convention, Meckler was less than honest about the purpose of the murkily funded mock convention. In fact, he both denied and confirmed what anyone paying attention already knew: The mock convention was designed to convince state legislators to get behind the idea of applying to Congress for a “convention of states.”
Time reported that in a statement to the Center for Public Integrity, Meckler claimed the mock convention was a strictly educational, nonpartisan event, and that it was not designed to advocate for a convention, to motivate people to author legislation, or to push the movement forward. “It was specifically not the purpose of the event,” he said. “We provided an educational experience for them. If somebody was excited by that, I think it’s just great that somebody got excited by education.”
But in both a speech at the mock convention and a video livestreamed on YouTube the last day of the event, Meckler forgot those talking points. He told the assembled “delegates” that the success of the mock convention was proof that America is ready for a “convention of states” to amend the Constitution. And in the YouTube video, Meckler said, “This is the real deal. I mean this is kind of the precursor to the real Super Bowl. It’s sort of a dress rehearsal.”
With double-talk and spin of that magnitude coming from Meckler and his organizations, American patriots would do well to question the veracity of his claims that a “convention of states” is a safe solution to America’s problems.
While Meckler’s pro-constitutional convention groups conduct their disingenuous push for a constitutional convention while being funded by “secret benefactors,” other pro-constitutional convention groups are even worse.
Take the Balanced Budget Amendment Foundation (BBA Foundation) as a prime example. While it is theoretically a distinct organization from the Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force (BBA Task Force), BBA Foundation President Loren Enns is the BBA Task Force campaigns director and four BBA co-founders sit on the BBA Foundation boards of directors and advisors. Those boards’ membership rosters are a litany of “the usual suspects” — typical neocons, members of the glob­alist Council on Foreign Relations, and Deep State operatives.
Here is a sample:
• William Owens is a retired four-star Navy Admiral who also served as vice chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. Besides being a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), he also serves on the boards of globalist organizations such as the Carnegie Foundation, Brookings Institution, and EastWest Institute, which “convenes annually the only three-party dialogue between the U.S. Democratic and Republican Parties and the Communist Party of China and between senior retired U.S. and Chinese military officers to ensure productive dialogue and common ground between the two nations,” according to its website.
• Tommy Thompson was the governor of Wisconsin from 1987 to 2001. He then served as President George W. Bush’s secretary of health and human services from 2001 to 2005. He is also a member of the CFR.
• R. James Woolsey was the head of the CIA from 1993 to 1995. He was also ambassador to the Negotiation on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) from Vienna from 1989 to 1991, under secretary of the Navy from 1977 to 1979, and general counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services from 1970 to 1973, and is a CFR member.
• David Walker served as comptroller general (head of the Government Accountability Office/GAO) for the U.S. government from 1998 to 2008 as an appointee of President Bill Clinton. In 2008, he was personally recruited by CFR Director Emeritus Peter G. Peterson as the CEO of the newly formed globalist Peterson Foundation. Most recently, Walker tried to run for governor of Connecticut.
While the constitutional convention crowd claims that theirs is a grassroots movement to rein in the federal government, the rosters of their leadership are swollen with government insiders, globalists, and operatives of the Deep State. A group less likely to want to rein in the federal government would be difficult to find.
While the short space of this article limits this writer’s ability to fully expose the agendas of the groups listed above, perhaps a brief primer on the establishment powerhouse known as the Council on Foreign Relations will suffice to both make the point and encourage the reader to investigate the others himself.
The CFR was founded in 1921 — after the refusal of the United States to enter the League of Nations — for the purpose of creating an environment conducive to world governance. The CFR boasts a disproportionate degree of political weight: While now only having a membership of 5,000 (equal to about .000015 percent of the U.S. population), it dominates fields such as politics, media, and tax-exempt foundations. The CFR has — since its inception — used its influence to openly push for an erosion of national sovereignty in favor of globalism/internationalism.
As part of its globalist agenda, the CFR has long favored the idea of rewriting the Constitution by way of a convention. As The New American’s Gary Benoit wrote in an article entitled “Bicentennial Plot” for an issue of this magazine in 1986 (and later made available online), CFR member Zbigniew Brzezinski made the goal of a modern-day constitutional convention very clear:
In his 1970 book Between Two Ages, Council on Foreign Relations member Zbigniew Brzezinski (National Security Advisor in the Carter Administration) discussed the potential for using a convention to bring about change. “The approaching two-hundredth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence,” he stated, “could justify the call for a national constitutional convention to reexamine the nation’s formal institutional framework. Either 1976 or 1989 — the two-hundredth anniversary of the Constitution — could serve as a suitable target date.”
CFR members in public office have spent their careers undermining the Constitution — further growing the size and scope of the out-of-control problem those advocating for a constitutional convention claim they want to solve. But the people who got America into this mess are not the ones to trust to get us out of it. And the plan they have had all along to “reexamine the nation’s formal institutional framework” by bringing about “a national constitutional convention” should be seen for what it is: a manipulative, dishonest ploy authored by conspirators hell-bent on altering the United States by changing — or replacing — the Constitution.
And they are playing the long game. While twisting and distorting simple truths into convoluted lies in an effort to sell their “solution,” the leaders of the pro-constitutional convention crowd are already looking ahead to their next move. That move is to change the Constitution and then keep on changing it. One such group is the misnamed American Constitution Foundation (ACF), which, not surprisingly, has as its vice president Neal Schuerer, who is also an “advisor to the Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force,” according to its website. Other leaders of ACF include Ron Scott, whose bio includes one of his claims to fame as “Colorado State Director and Senior Advisor, Article V Convention of States Project,” and Denny Meridith, who — besides being a “Senior Political Advisor and Consular Officer in U.S. Department of State” — serves on the boards of both the American School of the Hague in the Netherlands and the International School of Krakow in Poland, where he is also acting president.
ACF claims in its mission statement that it is “dedicated to the restoration of the Constitution as the governing document for America.” If that is so, then why is the group working to amend (change) the document it claims to want restored to its proper place? Furthermore, the group’s website states: “Once a convention is called, the first Amendment of an Article V Convention must be one that opens the door for States to more easily convene Conventions.”
And (to put in the for-what-it’s-worth column), the push for a constitutional convention does not only come from the Right. Many on the Left are openly pushing for the same thing. The only difference between the two is the ostensible reasons behind wanting a convention. Liberal groups such as Wolf PAC openly advocate for a convention that would have the power to reframe our founding document. And on August 9, the New York Times republished an article from the leftist Jacobin entitled “Think the Constitution Will Save Us? Think Again,” openly calling for a replacement for the Constitution. Make no mistake: If the efforts by “conservative” groups such as BBA Task Force, BBA Foundation, and Convention of States lead America to a constitutional convention, the Left will be there and will be prepared to introduce their own new constitution. In the final summary, the “Article V Convention” movement, while pretending to be both grassroots and pro-Constitution, is neither. Built on subterfuge, secretly funded, and powered by slick, expensive campaigns, the push for a constitutional convention is just another con job by the one-world-government crowd to strip the United States of the liberty protected by the Constitution by opening the document up to either one major change or a series of smaller changes.
Patriotic Americans owe it to themselves, their country, and future generations to reject the plans of the Insider/Internationalist/Big Government/Deep State/Globalist types and demand that the Constitution be enforced, not changed.
What Can Be Done?
What can Americans do to rein in the out-of-control federal government? Plenty!
First, continue to educate yourself and others — particularly state legislators and congressmen — about the Constitution. As long as the American people accept — whether out of ignorance or apathy — the status quo of elected officials ignoring constitutional boundaries, the problems will only get worse. By taking the time to understand constitutional principles and meeting — either in groups or one-on-one — with your state legislators and congressmen you can be part of a real solution that restores the Constitution to its proper place.
Another important element of that solution is that it is Article VI, not Article V, that — if applied — would rein in the federal beast that has overrun the boundaries set for it. Article V creates a  constitutional amendment process designed to correct errors or weaknesses in the Constitution, and such a convention could abolish or replace the Constitution. Article VI, on the other hand, addresses errors or weaknesses in the character of elected officials. It states that the Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof are the supreme law of the land, creates a constitutional oath taken by all public servants, and creates a duty to reject and oppose all constitutional violations.
Finally, in harmony with Article VI, the 10th Amendment allows state legislatures to nullify all unconstitutional laws, since they are not valid in the first place. In United States v. Sprague (1931), the Supreme Court stated, “The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified.”
If the “leaders” of the push for a constitutional convention were truly interested in saving our constitutional republic, they would be working to see Article VI and the 10th Amendment applied. Instead, they claim — despite the clear language of those parts of the Constitution — that neither will do the job, preferring to push for a dangerous convention that could undo what liberty and rights Americans have left.
But the American people — you — can do what those “leaders” will not. By applying the Constitution, instead of trying to change it, you can be part of the solution. For information and to find tools for educating yourself and others, visit
Photo: photographer3431 via iStock / Getty Images Plus
This article originally appeared in the September 3, 2018 print edition of The New American. The New American publishes a print magazine twice a month, covering issues such as politics, money, foreign policy, environment, culture, and technology. To subscribe, click here.

Jim Jordan Discusses Bruce Ohr Testimony….

Jim Jordan Discusses Bruce Ohr Testimony….

CNN's Don Lemon is Imagining Things! ~ Mark Dice

‘Hero’ McCain? Sarah Palin, his 2008 running mate, BARRED from funeral

‘Hero’ McCain? Sarah Palin, his 2008 running mate, BARRED from funeral

(National SentinelPetulant: For days now, the #NeverTrump media and commentariat has roasted POTUS Donald Trump for his measured response to the late Sen. John McCain’s death, which came earlier this week after the long-serving senior RINO from Arizona passed away from brain cancer.
POTUS Trump’s tweeted condolences were ‘insufficient’ and ‘petty.’ His delay in ordering U.S. flags be flown at half-staff…’insufficient’ and ‘petulant.’
Turns out the ‘hero’ himself had a massive petulant streak as well.
After earlier reports claimed that the Keating Five scandal and Vietnam War vet refused to allow POTUS Trump to attend his funeral, now comes a report claiming that he didn’t want his 2008 vice presidential running mate, Sarah Palin, there either.
As Breitbart News reports:
Breitbart News has independently confirmed an earlier report in People magazine, which reported that Palin was not sent an invitation, and was told through intermediaries to stay away from the ceremony.
McCain fundraiser Carla Eudy confirmed to People that Palin had not been invited — possibly, People speculated, at the behest of the McCain family.
The news comes on the tenth anniversary of the date in 2008 when Palin was announced as McCain’s pick for Vice President.
Palin now joins President Donald Trump on the list of those barred from the funeral.
Unlike the president, Palin never publicly fought with her former running mate and in fact, never publicly criticized him, either.
Just this week she sent this caring message despite the fact that McCain has said he should have picked “independent” former Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman to run against then-Sen. Barack Obama:
Today we lost an American original. Sen. John McCain was a maverick and a fighter, never afraid to stand for his beliefs. John never took the easy path in life — and through sacrifice and suffering he inspired others to serve something greater than self. John McCain was my friend. I will remember the good times. My family and I send prayers for Cindy and the McCain family.


Let’s not pretend that Sen. McCain was some iconic, ‘above it all’ figure in Washington for the nearly six terms in which he served.
In addition to the Keating Five savings and loan scandal in the 1980s, McCain had developed a reputation for crapping on his own party when he thought it would be personally beneficial to him and get him some friendly ‘mainstream media’ face time (which was always fleeting; the media savaged him during the 2008 election).
After they lost to Obama, Palin stuck to her roots and became an advocate for the small-government conservative Tea Party movement, while McCain went back to being an establishment RINO.
When two leaders of the movement — Senate colleagues Ted Cruz of Texas and Rand Paul of Kentucky — were elected, McCain referred to them as “wacko birds.”
People reached out to Palin for a comment for their story, but she refused. Instead, the Palin family released this statement: “[O]ut of respect for Sen. McCain and his family we have nothing to add at this point. The Palin family will always cherish their friendship with the McCains and hold those memories dear.”
Classy and poised versus bitter and petty to the very end.
McCain will be laid to rest at Annapolis after lying in state for several days in Washington, D.C.

Task force suggests 'compulsory social justice training'

Task force suggests ‘compulsory social justice training’

Celine RyanCalifornia Senior Campus Correspondent

  • A “Social Justice Task Force” is urging SUNY Plattsburgh to adopt a broad array of initiatives designed to create a “culture of social justice” on campus.
  • In addition to hiring a “chief diversity officer” and “actively and visibly” promoting social justice on campus, the task force also suggests “compulsory” social justice training for students and faculty.

A Social Justice Task Force” is recommending that SUNY Plattsburgh make wide-ranging and potentially costly efforts to promote “diversity and inclusion” on campus.

In March, the State University of New York at Plattsburgh created a Social Justice Task Force as a response to a outrage over a racist snapchat sent by a student. The task force was charged with “helping college leadership better understand matters of social justice, ensuring all voices are heard,” and articulating “further action steps the college should undertake and/or what other factors should be considered” in order to achieve this goal.

“Organize and promote, across disciplines, yearly campus learning activities and events emphasizing diversity and social justice causes.”   

The task force issued its final report in an August 1 memo addressed to University President Dr. John Ettling, outlining 20 specific recommendations for promoting social justice both rhetorically and financially.
[RELATED: YDSA urges socialists to infiltrate public education]
Before introducing its suggestions, the memo identifies seven “key precepts of social justice” that the task force devised based on conversations with “campus and community stakeholders.”
According to the task force, social justice means that “a community must foster access to positive experiences and productive opportunities for all of its members,” as well as “ensure the rights of all of its members” because “marginalized groups are entitled to have their voices heard.”
“Wrongs and harm are to be righted in a way free of blame and judgment,” the document continues, adding that “members of a community must exhibit consistent recognition of the inherent worth, dignity, and contribution of each person in that community.”
In addition, the task force asserts that “members of a community are morally bound to keep those forces in check that would work against justice, equality, and self-determination,” elaborating that a community is “obligated to recognize bias and to responsibly, fairly, and productively address the ways privilege can undermine equitable treatment of its members.”
“The communication by and within a community should be inclusive, not divisive, and used in a manner that nurtures the positive development of its members,” another bullet point states. “Members of a community should promote understanding of the sensitivities and experiences of others, avoid generalizing about groups and individuals within that community, and communicate with civility.”
[RELATED: Marquette forum says ‘white community’ ‘perpetuates racism’]
With those principles in mind, the task force crafted suggestions for how SUNY Plattsburgh can promote social justice among students and faculty members, as well as with its own rhetoric and policies.
First, the memo suggests that the administration “invest in a culture of social justice by hiring a chief diversity officer,” “allocate resources to transition the affirmative action officer position into a full-time position,” “invest in additional support for the investigative arm of the Title IX office,” and “formulate and approve a long-term strategic plan, with measurable goals to recruit, hire, and retain more faculty from underrepresented groups.”
Turning its attention to the category of Education and Professional Development, the document goes on to recommend that the school create an “employee conduct manual” that can be incorporated “as part of a comprehensive and compulsory social justice training program for employees and service personnel.”
The task force also proposes that all future freshman and transfer orientations should include a “detailed and comprehensive segment on social justice, diversity, inclusion, and equity,” though it also calls for orientation information to incorporate “information regarding First Amendment principles and ways they apply to discourse, dialogue, debate, and behavior in a college setting.”
The administration should also “organize and promote, across disciplines, yearly campus learning activities and events emphasizing diversity and social justice causes,” as well as “highlight the diversity of the college and the region” whenever possible.
[RELATED: Berkeley task force blames conservatives for leftist violence]
With regard to students, the memo calls on administrators to “actively and visibly encourage faculty-mentored, student-led initiatives that promote ideals and behaviors of inclusion and social justice…and purposefully engage and educate members of the college and community about such ideals.”
The task force even took the time to specify what it means to “actively and visibly” encourage social justice efforts, saying this entails “promoting and sustaining such initiatives through the allocation of resources and continued public acknowledgment of the crucial nature and importance of those initiatives.”
In addition, the memo calls for the administration to “expedite the completion of the ‘Bias Act and Hate Crime Response Policy,’” and devise intake and exit surveys to query students about their “impressions of issues related to social justice and campus climate.”
The memo concludes with a list of miscellaneous suggestions, such as incorporating diversity and social justice into the school’s mission statement, signing the “CEO Action for Diversity and Inclusion Pledge,” and “continue and expand fundraising efforts for mechanisms promoting and sustaining diversity, inclusion, and social justice on campus.”
Moreover, the task force advocates establishing “an independent, permanent social justice advisory group that will identify and monitor crucial social justice issues on campus,” adding that the advisory group should also “monitor and identify funding opportunities related to social justice issues.
[RELATED: Cornell task force suggests more funding for ‘diverse hires’]
Dr. Jonathan Slater, one of the task force’s two co-chairs, told Campus Reform that it is now up to senior administrators to determine which of the suggestions to implement, and how.
“The Social Justice Task Force recommended to the president that the administration examine best practices for sustaining and promoting the mechanisms of social justice, diversity, and inclusion on college campuses, with the expectation that such practices will be used as benchmarks for SUNY Plattsburgh’s own efforts to sustain and promote those mechanisms on campus,” Slater explained. 
“The recommendation does not call for compilation of a list, but rather the elaboration of a set of best practices,” he added.
Executive Director of Communications and Public Affairs Ken Knelly told Campus Reform that the administration is pleased with the task force’s report, but is still evaluating its recommendations.
“The recommendations are thoughtful and workable. The president publicly thanked the task force,” he noted. “Some points cover areas where we are already advancing. Campus leadership is examining all of these efforts collectively as it moves forward.”
Follow the author of this article on Twitter: @celinedryan