Tag Archives: Balanced Budget Amendment fraud

Constitutional Convention Call Redux - Part 2

Posted on May 14, 2026 by | Leave a comment

“In questions of power let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Thomas Jefferson

“If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges, and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions.” Thomas Jefferson

“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” Thomas Jefferson

There are a number of groups pushing a Con-Con today, the Compact for America, the Goldwater Institute, (who supports the group, Restoring Freedom. Org. Inc. who created the National Debt Relief Amendment or BBA), the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the National Council of State Legislators (NCSL) and many others. Link Let’s look at a few of these groups.

Compact for America

Just what is this “Compact for America?” From their own website:

“The CFA is a non-profit exempt corporation promoting a bi-partisan “Initiative” to seek the passage of legislation by the states and the U.S. Congress to ratify a balanced budget amendment into the Constitution of the United States in a way that has never been done before. The Initiative includes the use of an interstate compact agreement and the counterpart federal legislation to coordinate the use of Article V of the Constitution of the United States by state legislatures to originate and ratify a specific constitutional amendment that would require Congress to operate under a balanced budget. The use of the Initiative’s interstate compact vehicle is expected to reduce the time necessary to originate and ratify the specific balanced budget amendment from 10 years to less than 12 months!” Link

CFA Directors and Advisors

Take a look at the “about” section of the CFA website again. On the Board of Directors is none other than the liberal Goldwater Institute’s Nick Dranias, a lawyer, who has been promoting a Con-Con via the Institute for years. Link CFA’s Chairman of the Board is banker, Harold R. DeMoss III. Oilman Kyle McAlister, is the secretary and treasurer as well as Vice President.

The Advisory Council includes a Senior Federal Judge, professors, businessmen, and political consultants. Two names were of great interest. John McLaughlin has worked for neo-con Arnold Schwarzenegger, Eric Cantor, former Senator Fred Thompson (CFR), and Steve Forbes. McLaughlin and Associates’ client list reads like a who’s who of the neo-con Trotskyites, including the infamous neo-conservative Heritage Foundation which has both Communist, United Nations, and Rockefeller connections. Link

However, the name on the CFA Advisory Board that really caught my eye was Lawrence Lessig, professor of Law at Harvard University. According to Citizen Wells News Blog, Lawrence Lessig was an associate of Obama’s at the University of Chicago. Lessig considers Obama a friend, and has supported the President on his website and in speaking engagements. Lessig is also mentioned on Obama’s site as part of his technology initiative.

In a 2008 article at Sic Semper Tyrannis about Lawrence Lessig, it states, “Killing God and destroying the right to private property are usually associated with communism. They also seem important to the prominent legal theorist serving as Barack Obama’s technology adviser. It should not be surprising that Obama doesn’t want the world knowing to what extent Lessig is involved in advising the Democratic front-runner.” The former Harvard Law School professor is the leading light of what is known as the “free culture movement,” which insists that the age of the Internet should mean the abolition of intellectual property rights. He also has radical ideas about government information. British-American Silicon Valley entrepreneur, and “Cult of the Amateur” author, Andrew Keen, has called Lessig an “intellectual property communist.”

What is even more disturbing is a video Lessig produced and presented at a conference, which mocks Jesus and portrays the Saviour as homosexual. Lessig has been busy promoting a Con-Con for a long time. Remember his name, as you’ll see it pop up again and again. Obama may even nominate him for the Supreme Court.

In September, 2011, I wrote a two-part article entitled, “The Constitutional Convention Con,” regarding the co-sponsoring of a Con-Con Conference in late September at Harvard by the Tea Party Patriots (TPP), whose leaders at that time were Mark Meckler and Jenny Beth Martin. Lawrence Lessig was the Harvard co-sponsor and headed the pro-Con-Con members.

Another article from October of 2011, was entitled, “Occupy Wall Street and the Constitutional Convention.” The OWS was not only demanding the United Nations one-percent tax, but they were/are also demanding a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of changing the entire social structure of the US. Leftist commentator, Cenk Uygur announced the formation of Wolf-PAC to campaign for a Constitutional Convention. His call to action was featured on a website, Amped Status, run by David DeGraw who is one of the original founders of the OWS movement. Here is a video of Cenk’s dangerous Constitutional Convention announcement. He was present at the Constitutional Convention Conference at Harvard along with Lawrence Lessig.

“Tea Party Patriots, Harvard, and the Constitutional Convention,” was published on March 7, 2012. The list of attendees at the Harvard Conference reads like a who’s who of the left with a few moderates from the right thrown in for “balance.” Leftists, Cenk Uygur, CFA’s Nick Dranias, Lawrence Lessig, Bill Walker, as well as numerous neo-con Trotskyites, all vociferous proponents of a Con-Con, were invited. Obviously absent were the anti-Con-Con folks, the John Birch Society, Eagle Forum, American Policy Center’s Tom DeWeese, Daughters of the American Revolution, American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and virtually every Second Amendment organization (other than NRA) and countless others who could have balanced the attendees.

Compact for America Goals

In January of 2013, the Compact for America (CFA) Initiative started lobbying all the state legislators to propose legislation that would call for a Constitutional Convention under the guise of a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA). Unlike the 1980s call for a Con-Con, this is even more insidious. The Compact for America (CFA) is calling for a Constitutional Convention, as provided for in Article V of the Constitution, to meet in Dallas, Texas on July 4, 2013. The Right of the People in convention to alter their government could be used to make this a runaway convention.

Here is a short overview of the CFA from the New American Magazine, January 21, 2026 issue. I would urge you to read the entire article and especially take note of the CFA timeline included in the article.

The CFA Initiative is composed of three parts: First, there is a multi-state compact petitioning Congress to convene a con-con with state governors of member states serving as delegates and notifying Congress that members of the compact have pre-ratified the BBA called for and defined by the CFA; second, there is a balanced budget amendment as defined by the CFA that would be added to the Constitution; and third, there is a congressional resolution that would call a constitutional convention when and if 38 states join the CFA compact, and then would automate the steps required to add the BBA to the Constitution upon receipt of a certified copy of the BBA evidencing that the convention has approved the BBA for ratification.

The CFA claims the 1787 Constitutional Convention did not exceed its mandate, and was not a runaway Convention, but as we discussed in Part 1 of this article, it certainly did exceed the authority they were granted by the states. They were to meet only to revise the Articles of Confederation, instead they threw the entire document out. They also claim the Dallas Con-Con would follow the claims of proposing only a BBA and nothing else. The Dallas Convention would only propose amendments that would then be submitted for ratification by the states, either by state legislatures or state conventions. This so-called “safeguard” has not been effective in stopping all bad amendments however. The 16th Amendment establishing an income tax, the 17th Amendment of direct election of Senators, and the 18th Amendment of prohibition of alcohol was ratified by 3/4ths of the states. The right of the people once they’re in Convention to revise their government could easily lead to another runaway Convention. Nothing can truly be limited.

Attorney, Publius Huldah makes it clear:

The two basic methods for amending the Constitution are set forth at Article V:

(1) Congress proposes Amendments and the States decide whether to ratify or reject.

(2) Or Congress calls a convention if 2/3 (34 states) of the States ask for it.

Whether (1) or (2), the Amendment are valid when:

(a) ratified by the legislatures of 3/4 (38 states) of the States, or

(b) ratified by separate conventions in 3/4 of the States.

Congress proposes whether it will be (a) or (b).

Remember, there is no safeguard from a runaway convention, regardless of what you’ve been told. Article V of the Constitution does not provide any language to limit an “Amendment Convention” or its power. There are no rules, or restrictions or instructions in Article V.

There are 4 paths for an amendment:

  1. proposal by convention of states, and ratification by state conventions (it’s never been used)
  2. proposal by convention of states, and ratification by state legislatures (it’s never been used)
  3. proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions of the citizens (used only once for 21st amendment) (This is not a Con-Con)( In 1933 the 21st Amendment - lifting the prohibition on alcohol - was ratified in special ratifying convention, thus circumventing - bypassing altogether - the legislatures of the states.)
  4. proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times for all other amendments)

Before the CFA’s BBA Amendment Con-Con could begin, at least 38 state legislatures would need to join in the CFA’s “compact” calling for the convening in Dallas, in July of 2013. As CFA Board Member and Goldwater Institute Director of Policy Development and Constitutional Government, Nick Dranias explains, the CFA consolidates the Article V process in two pieces of legislation, a state compact and congressional resolution.

Here’s an admission from CFA’s Nick Dranias, constitutional “expert” with the Goldwater Institute, informing the Arizona house committee on March 21st, at about 1:38-1:40 pm (on the archived video on Arizona SCR 1005, Constitution; Amendments Convention; Federal Debt) that “two retired business men” brought them this “genius plan.” Thank Heaven the legislators on that committee were informed and intelligent enough to vote it down. In discussing the opponents’ fears of a runaway Article V Convention, the truth just slipped out, again. Dranius stated, “the fact that it may be abused. . . isn’t an argument against using it!” Excuse me, Mr. Dranias, but it is a perfect argument against using it!

The historically uneducated members of state legislatures, as well as the uneducated electorate hear the CFA proponents telling them the Dallas Convention will put a stop to the out-of-control federal spending. The Constitution already has specifically limited areas of spending. The CFA’s Balanced Budget Amendment does nothing to stop the unconstitutional spending by Congress! As we discussed in Part 1, it actually legalizes Congress’s spending on anything, no matter how unconstitutional! As long as the amount does not exceed the limit set in Section 2 of the BBA, they can spend on anything they desire. Section 3 of the BBA actually authorizes an increase in the federal debt limit to 105 percent of the actual debt level on the effective date of the BBA. As explained in Publius Huldah’s article, “Why the Balanced Budget Amendment is a Hoax and Deadly Trap,” Section 4 of the BBA proposed by the CFA actually gives Congress and the president new powers not already granted them by the Constitution! Link

Knowing who has been behind the push for a Con-Con since the 1960’s, the Dallas Convention would undoubtedly end up in another runaway Convention. If the Compact for America is lobbying your state legislators, please contact them and tell them you do not want a state call for a Constitutional Convention!

Next, we’ll look at ALEC’s drive for a Constitutional Convention, along with Henry Hazlitt, Rexford Tugwell, and the New States Constitution which is waiting in the wings to replace the 1787 Constitution.

 

 

Leave a comment

Posted in Constitutional Convention

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Constitutional Convention Call Redux - Part 1

Posted on May 13, 2026 by | 2 comments

“I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitution Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congressmen 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 it.” -Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Warren E. Burger

“Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention, I would tremble for the result of the second.” -James Madison, Father of the Constitution and fourth President of the United States

“All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree.” James Madison, speech at the Constitutional Convention, July 11, 2026

We could lose our God given rights, secured by the 1787 Constitution if a new call for a Con-Con is successful. The Constitution is about the specific powers we delegated to the federal government. Our rights pre-date and pre-exist the Constitution. The sole purpose of civil government is to secure those rights. Knowing what is waiting in the wings, if we lose this Constitution, all will finally be lost, and the war for our freedoms would be over. If you never read another one of my articles, I beg you to read and disseminate this one. Then contact your state legislators and find out where your state stands regarding a call for a Constitutional Convention.

Thirty Years Ago

In the early 1980’s, we did not have home computers, lap tops, or IPADs; neither did we have unlimited long-distance telephone rates. We only had our Fax machines and our telephones. Yet, the nation’s patriotic groups, and the Kitchen Militia gals, worked tirelessly to stave off a call for another Constitutional Convention. We knew the dangers, we knew the precedents, and we knew what was waiting in the wings to replace the Constitution given to us by honorable men. We knew that if we lost our Constitution and Bill of Rights, that the great experiment in freedom and liberty would be lost forever.

We worked to inform people of what a new Constitutional Convention would bode for America. Thirty-two of the necessary 34 states needed to call a new Con-Con had petitioned the Congress for the purpose of proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA).

(An amendment to the Constitution is first proposed by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a Constitutional Convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by Constitutional Convention. This is the way we’ve ratified amendments since the Bill of Rights. It is then sent to the states for their votes. If 38 of the states ratify the amendment, it will be added to the Constitution. The danger in the ratifying process is that Congress decides whether it will be ratified by the legislators of 38 states, or by special Ratifying Conventions. As well, the legislators who called for the Convention can be totally circumvented - having no voice in the outcome, thus opening a Pandora’s Box and powerless to close it.)

Thirteen states finally recalled their calls; Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Idaho, Utah, North Dakota, Arizona, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Wyoming, Oklahoma, and in 2010, Tennessee. Link Now some are again calling for a Con-Con.

Our Constitution is still a barrier to the globalists, and they hate this document. The elite have always wanted to destroy it because, as Patrick Henry said, “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” The One Worlders have a new constitution waiting in the wings which will grant us privileges by the state. The distinctive characteristic of our Constitution is that it created a federal government of only limited, defined, and enumerated powers! We must focus on the limited powers we delegated instead of our “rights.” Rights pre-date and pre-exist the Constitution. Only with this conception of rights can we avoid having black-robed federal judges determine the scope and extent of our rights.

We have elected officials in local, state, and federal governments who have no problem trampling our Constitution. We have heard the cries from the right and left for a BBA via an Article V Constitutional Convention. The Constitution LIMITS what the federal government is allowed to spend with taxpayer dollars. It is so limited that the funding of outrageous items today would fill an encyclopedia. Our Constitution does not authorize foreign aid, or museums about rock stars, or studying of the blue lizard, or Chinese prostitutes, or unconstitutional wars, etc., etc., ad nauseam. We have a majority of Republicans in congress today…so why in heaven’s name aren’t they balancing the budget now without an amendment?

Of course, unknown to most of the electorate, the BBA would actually legalize the unconstitutional spending the Congress has been doing for decades. See Publius Huldah’s most important article “Why the Balanced Budget Amendment is a Hoax and a Deadly Trap.”

Forty-five Republican Senators and the majority of Republican Representatives absolutely love the BBA and desire its passage, including Rand Paul. They talk openly about it to the dumbed down electorate, never telling us that it would LEGALIZE UNCONSTITUTIONAL SPENDING. This would give Congress a free hand to spend whatever they want to on any frivolous item that floats past their desks. The Constitution limits CONGRESS alone to the spending of money!

The BBA will usher in a totalitarian dictatorship. Pursuant to the unconstitutional Budget Act of 1921, the President has been preparing the budget. Since the Budget Act is unconstitutional, the President’s preparation of the budget has been likewise unconstitutional. Section 3 of the BBA would legalize what is now unconstitutional and unlawful, but Section 3 of the BBA does more than merely legalize the unlawful. It actually transfers the Constitutional power to make the appropriations and to determine taxes to the President. Congress will simply become a rubber stamp. Senate bill from 112th Congress. House bill from 113th Congress.

Former Senator Jim DeMint, and Senator Mike Lee, (neo-cons) are determined to jam this down our throats along with Congressional representatives like Michelle Bachmann. Don’t tell me they don’t understand what they’re doing, because all of them love the out-of-control spending and the BBA would legalize it. In the July 7, 2011, WSJ, Jim DeMint joined with that bastion of conservative politics, Maine’s Senator Olympia Snowe, to push the BBA, stating it is The Only Reform That Will Restrain Spending. Liars and thieves!

The 1787 Convention

In 1787, delegates gathered in a Conference of States (not a Constitutional Convention) to discuss problems with interstate commerce. They were given strict instructions by the Congress that they were to meet only for “the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation.” Eleven of the twelve states present, specifically instructed their delegates to discuss nothing more than the commerce issue.

Once convened, the delegates of the twelve states, formed a “committee of the whole” (chaired by the elected George Washington, President of the Conference), took a vote, and declared the Articles of Confederation null and void! For five months they debated behind closed doors and emerged with an entirely new form of government. Our 1787 Constitution was the result. The Conference of the States had become a runaway Constitutional Convention! It happened then, and we are certain it will happen again if we don’t stop the process. The precedent was set.

An Article V Constitutional Convention today would undoubtedly mutate the same way the 1787 “Conference of States” mutated into a Constitutional Convention. A Constitutional Convention makes its own rules, cannot be limited, and could indeed throw out the entire structure, including the narrowly defined, limited and enumerated powers granted the federal government, just like the framers threw out the Articles of Confederation in 1787! Remember, the Bill of Rights tells the federal government what it CANNOT do!

About 50 of the 55 delegates at the Constitutional Convention were practicing Christians, so the Constitution they wrote was rooted squarely in the Word of God and the Ten Commandments. It maximized individual liberty while at the same time limiting government power. There are absolutely no Constitutional guarantees that the legal precedent of the first Convention will not be repeated by the second one, the result being a new Constitution. However, you can rest assured that this one will not be from Godly Christian men. Back in the early 80s, many of the states that called for a one-item Convention like the BBA, wrote limiting language into their calls, (thinking they could indeed control the agenda, and stating they would secede from the Convention if it overstepped the bounds). Nevertheless, the precedent of the first Convention is the basis for American jurisprudence. A Con-Con is not just the amendment that is at issue. The entire document is taken down from its pedestal and is put on the table and people go to work on it, tearing it apart. There are NO RULES!

As well, the Unbridled Power of the delegates to a Con-Con has been acknowledged several times by various State Supreme Courts, and a letter from former U.S. Chief Justice Warren Burger confirms the danger. In his letter Justice Burger said:

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

James Madison is the “Father” of our Constitution. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22; “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us.” (Judicial, Legislative, Executive)

There were delegates from twelve of the thirteen states in attendance at the original 1787 Convention. Rhode Island did not send delegates. The most notable statesmen present were Washington, Franklin, Madison, and Hamilton, all of whom signed the final Constitution. Ultimately, 39 of the original 55 delegates ended up signing, but it is likely that none were completely satisfied. Their views were summed up by Benjamin Franklin, who said,

“There are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. … I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. … It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies…”

The names of several prominent Founders are notable for their not having participated in the Constitutional Convention. Thomas Jefferson was abroad, serving as the minister to France (nonetheless, Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams, would describe the delegates approvingly as a gathering of “demi-gods”). Jefferson later stated that had he been present at the Convention, he would have urged term limits for politicians. John Adams was in Britain, serving as minister to that country, but he wrote home to encourage the delegates. Patrick Henry refused to participate because he “smelt a rat in Philadelphia, tending toward the monarchy.” Also absent were John Hancock and Samuel Adams. Many of the states’ older and more experienced leaders may have simply been too busy with the local affairs of their states to attend the Convention, which had originally been planned to strengthen the existing Articles of Confederation, not to write a Constitution for a completely new national government.

Now, think about the delegates and leaders of the 1787 Constitutional Convention. They were men of letters, with integrity, honor, and love of liberty and freedom. The Founders of America were patriots, visionaries, revolutionaries, world shakers, and nation builders. They joined together to protect America’s citizens from an over reaching, all powerful, centralized federal government. Although imperfect men, they were statesmen who understood government needed to be chained to protect the people.

Can you imagine the delegates we would get from the states today? It would be the same Congress which gave us a $16 trillion plus debt, which won’t stand up to Obama, that passed the Patriot Act, the NDAA, and all the other egregious bills they’ve signed on to. Can you see the delight of the globalists in destroying the Constitution that binds them? Can you imagine today’s Washington D.C. leaders deciding how to change our Constitution? I tremble at the very thought.

Who is behind the push for a Con-Con call today? What is the Compact for America? Who is ALEC? Who was Henry Hazlitt and Rexford Tugwell? What new Constitution is waiting in the wings, written by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations? We will answer these questions in subsequent articles.

Finally, a special thank you to my friend, retired attorney, Publius Huldah, for her help with this article.

 

 

2 Comments

Posted in Constitutional Convention

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,