Posted by Deb Wells on 04/09/10
Last updated 04/09/10

This writer cites the Father of the U.S. Constitution James Madison's warnings against a general convention to amend our Constitution.

When grandstanding politicians begin speaking out about having a Con Con, it sends up a red flag.  In the current political climate, I would "tremble" (Madison's word) thinking about the possible result.

This warning phrase from Madison frightens me more than anything - "an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides". 

Whether actually "violent" in current terms or not, there's no question that most politicians who would be involved in a state or federal Con Con are not yet fully educated or on board with the true meaning of FREEDOM and LIBERTY.

Suggestions that the United States call a new constitutional convention, as allowed in the Constitution's Article V, have popped up in some state legislatures and even on a page in the Wall Street Journal. No longer do these voices claim a convention can be limited to consideration of a single amendment (e.g., a Balanced Budget Amendment); grandstanding politicians are proposing a wide assortment of many amendments to produce big changes.

Speaking to us from across the years, the Father of the U.S. Constitution, James Madison, wrote this warning on November 2, 1788, against calling another general constitutional convention.

"If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides; it would probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric.

"Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America, and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned."

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2010/apr10/10-04-09.html

Good advice indeed from the Father of the U.S. Constitution.

Posted 04/09/10 JohnBaeza Brooksville, FL

Please listen here for some interesting pro-Article V convention information from Kevin Gutzman: http://libertypulse.com/blog/2010/04/07/kevin-gutzman-explains-article-5-con vention/ John J. Baeza, Assistant State Coordinator, Education Chairman, Florida Campaign for Liberty 352-442-8177

Posted 04/11/10 EdwardRBurgess Saint Albans, WV

Deb is right. the votes for Liberty are not yet enough. the votes for Socialisms are still too many.

Posted by Deb Wells on 10/09/09
Last updated 10/29/09

Since Ron Paul's Audit the Fed bill was introduced, you've reached millions of Americans through phone calls, mailings, radio and television interviews, letters to the editors, emails, social networking sites, door-to-door canvassing, booths at fairs, gun shows and music festivals, and a host of other local events and activities in communities around the country.

Then we turned up the heat.  You put the pedal to the metal, shifted gears and took aim at the Senate.

You made your voices heard loud and clear by calling your Senators and attending Town Hall events, and collected petition signatures for the cause at every possible event.  Then on September 15, you hand-delivered thousands upon thousands of petitions to Senators across the country, making S.604 Mass Action Day a resounding success!

There are currently 30 co-sponsors in the Senate!!

To make it interesting, Campaign for Liberty held a competition.

The following individuals gathered the most signatures on petitions in their states.  They not only win our respect, gratitude, and admiration, they've won a copy of Ron Paul's new book End the Fed and a pocket Constitution, both bearing Congressman Ron Paul's autograph!

A big shout out to Debi Longarello in Florida, Rob Bulas in Ohio and Brent Roos in Illinois for collecting 1,000 or more petitions! 

Please join me in congratulating all of the following Patriots:

And now, for the state that collected the most signatures as a percentage of population:

WASHINGTON STATE

Members gathered a whopping 7,180 unique signatures!

Congratulations to Washington State who wins a $1,500 gift certificate to the Campaign for Liberty store!

Here's how the winner was calculated:  Unique signatures gathered divided by total 2008 est. population.  The winner is based on percent of total population, which is why Washington State edged out Florida for first place. (Although in some cases, twice as many petitions were actually delivered, unique signatures were used in the actual calculation.)

The state of Minnesota came in second with 3,000 unique signatures!

The state of Michigan came in third with 5,622 signatures!

A special shout out to Florida who gathered the most unique signatures with 10,160!

All of these states deserve a big round of applause for getting over 250 unique signatures on Mass Action Day:

THANKS TO ALL OF YOU FOR MAKING S.604 MASS ACTION DAY A BIG SUCCESS!!

Keep up the great work!  Let's get a majority in the Senate to co-sponsor!

Posted 10/09/09 VictimOfFeds San Clemente, CA

Why isn't this thing passed yet?

Posted 10/09/09 DemonHunter1989 Great Falls, VA

my senator mark warner still hasn't signed. i've written three letters too (although pre-written). he has shown his true colors. i guess i can't do too much damage to him since i would never vote for that guy to begin with, him being a party-line democrat.

Posted 10/09/09 Josiah Keller Hillsboro, WI

Wait, does the first list mean that over half of the states didn't collect signatures?

Posted 10/09/09 Jonathan Kovaciny Mankato, MN

Don't quit! Printable 10-line petitions for H.R.1207 and S.604: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=21519

Posted 10/09/09 Scott D Chicago, IL

Awesome Job Illinois! Bret Roos is an ANIMAL!

Posted 10/10/09 MarkCrossEA Kissimmee, FL

Congratulation to everyone in Florida who participated. You all did a great job!

Posted 10/10/09 ChrisAlterio Edgewater, FL

Great job to everyone! Keep the pressure on your Senators with phone calls, emails, faxes, snail mail, petition signatures, and if need be find out the your Senator's Legislative Director's contact info in D.C. and try to set up conference calls. Don't stop until they either cosponsor S. 604 or are removed from office.

Posted 10/10/09 MichaelBarry Sebring, FL

I think we put in a respectable effort in Florida, but does this list mean that as many as 33 states collected fewer than 250 unique signatures? How many signatures were accumulated on the Home Page? Was low petition activity in some states related to the fact that both Senators of that state were already on board?

Posted 10/10/09 Deb Wells Peoria, AZ

Both Senators have cosponsored in some states, a few states are not yet fully organized, and some either chose not to report their number of signatures, or were unable to collect numbers in time to announce. Over 160 thousand petitions were delivered to the Hill by headquarters. It is difficult to estimate the total delivered to regional offices (although it appears that at least as many, if not more, were delivered regionally on Mass Action Day). Members are continuing to deliver signed petitions to regional offices, some on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. We can't let up. Many more petitions, letters, faxes and phone calls are needed in order to get a majority to cosponsor in the Senate.

Posted by Deb Wells on 11/30/10
Last updated 01/07/11

UPDATE:  This monstrosity passed.  Now we need to work toward stopping it!

S.510 passed in the Senate on Tuesday, November 30.  Now it moves to the House for final vote.

ROLL CALL VOTES by STATE -

Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Nay

Alaska: Begich (D-AK), Yea Murkowski (R-AK), Yea

Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Nay McCain (R-AZ), Nay

Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Yea

California: Boxer (D-CA), Yea Feinstein (D-CA), Yea

Colorado: Bennet (D-CO), Yea Udall (D-CO), Yea

Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Yea Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea

Delaware: Carper (D-DE), Yea Coons (D-DE), Yea

Florida: LeMieux (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Yea

Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Nay Isakson (R-GA), Nay

Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Yea Inouye (D-HI), Yea

Idaho: Crapo (R-ID), Nay Risch (R-ID), Nay

Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Yea Kirk (R-IL), Yea

Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea

Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Yea

Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Nay

Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Nay McConnell (R-KY), Nay

Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea

Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea

Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Yea Mikulski (D-MD), Yea

Massachusetts: Brown (R-MA), Yea Kerry (D-MA), Yea

Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Yea

Minnesota: Franken (D-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea

Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Nay Wicker (R-MS), Nay

Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Not Voting McCaskill (D-MO), Yea

Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Yea

Nebraska: Johanns (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea

Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Nay Reid (D-NV), Yea

New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Shaheen (D-NH), Yea

New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea Menendez (D-NJ), Yea

New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Yea Udall (D-NM), Yea

New York: Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea Schumer (D-NY), Yea

North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Hagan (D-NC), Yea

North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Yea

Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Yea Voinovich (R-OH), Yea

Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Nay Inhofe (R-OK), Nay

Oregon: Merkley (D-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea

Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Yea Specter (D-PA), Yea

Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Yea Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea

South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Nay Graham (R-SC), Nay

South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Yea Thune (R-SD), Nay

Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Nay

Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Nay Hutchison (R-TX), Nay

Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Nay Hatch (R-UT), Nay

Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Yea Sanders (I-VT), Yea

Virginia: Warner (D-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Yea

Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea

West Virginia: Manchin (D-WV), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea

Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Yea Kohl (D-WI), Yea

Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Nay Enzi (R-WY), Yea

Roll Call Vote Record

Posted by Deb Wells on 08/05/10
Last updated 08/05/10

In Missouri's recent primary, there were a few good candidates on the ballot.  Many of them lost their primary.

One short day after the primary, some began telling their friends that they must vote in November for those Republicans who won their primaries or else "those horrible Democrats will get into office".  They were adamant that we must play "the game".  Some were rude and condescending to those who thought otherwise.

"The good people are obligated to support the lesser of two evils."

The quote above is known as the biggest lie in politics.  Why?  Because the lesser of two evils is actually MORE evil.  We know to run from the devil, but it's much worse when an evil person comes in quoting scripture.

Problem:  You can't mobilize against your own guy if he's evil.  He knows this.  He depends on it.  He needs you to be his friend.  He needs you on his list of supporters.  He knows human nature.  If you support him and vote for him, you'll feel guilty about mobilizing against him when he does bad things.  This is HIS side of the "game" that you don't see, and it's his best kept secret.

The secret is out.

Bottom Line:  There must be a price in the election season for bad behavior during the legislative season.

Posted 08/05/10 celticreeler Rolla, MO

Soooo, we have this rigid system for narrowing and scripting the field of candidates from which we are allowed to choose in November. These parties are oh so important--the pseudodichotomy must be maintained at all costs! All bets are off in Missouri when union bosses start telling their members, who mostly vote for party A, to vote in the primary of party B, since one of party B's candidates is found to be particularly acceptable to the union. Certainly wouldn't want to chance having a less than union-friendly candidate on the November ballot! Similarly, when a candidate in party B wheedles a promise from party A not to run anyone in the primary, and then tells those voters to vote for him in his contested party B primary, reassuring them that they can return to party A in November, things are getting pretty strange. Will the party hierarchy consider that these individuals are "good and faithful" members of the party? What a double standard! They will get the VIP suite at the next convention, no doubt.

Posted 08/05/10 Robyn Hamlin Saint Louis, MO

It is important to hold onto our principles. A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.

Posted 08/09/10 Mr. Bill Springfield, MO

Deb & Robyn are correct when they mention voting for'the lesser of 2 evils' is still evil. So, like a shirt I have says "If the Republicreats scare you, vote Libertarian". So, instead of keep voting for the same ole stuff, let's try a new approach. Yes, I was very disappointed that both Chuck Purgason & Bob Parker lost in the primary. But some people aren't even aware that there are 2 other parties here in Missouri that have candidates. So, now that Bailout Blunt has gotten the republican candidacy, remember there is a Libertarian candidate for that position. Let's quit voting for 'the lesser of 2 evils'.

Posted 08/10/10 chuckmc Ironton, MO

Our current two party system is nothing more than a superbowl mentality, a contest which pits US vs THEM. "Our side must win!" "I've been a lifelong dem/rep" etc. In reality it obfuscates the voter from seeing the reality of the corruptness that infests almost all of Congress. It keeps voters in a "playoff" mentality so that they vote for their "party", irregardless of the issues. Where have the true conservatives gone? We have none! The reason is that reps/dems are all the same. They all pander to lobby money, special interests, and their own well-being. Very few actually respond to the wishes of their electorate. The media encourages this as well, whether it be by the media's control of those who really run the show, or simply because the superbowl mentality sells issues, a third party stands little chance of gaining attention. In many states it is near impossible to even get a third party candidate on the ballot. In reality, getting a third party elected to Congress is much like the Sisyphean effort to roll the stone uphill. Did your vote "Count"? Hell yes, it counted. It was a protest vote. IT showed that there are people out there that don't buy their lines, who think for themselves. If this protest vote grows year by year, they will HAVE to take notice.

Posted 08/19/10 Americanliberty Barnhart, MO

Where the hell do you find these people intimidating others not to vote third party or being rude to them? I've heard several clowns recommend that voting for a third party would be dumb, but I've never had anyone intimidate me for saying I'd vote third party. Is it just that some people see you as weak?

Posted 10/16/10 dcrenshaw Santaquin, UT

Some may think me crazy, but I think it is time for us to push for preferential voting in every State, along with a 50% plus one of total "ballots cast", where a "none of the above" and a "but not these guys" choices were available. With this kind of a ballot every voters vote would count, because with preferential voting if your 1st choice had the least votes your 2nd choice would automatically replace it, and so on until your last choice. Or if your first choice was "none of the above" or last two choices were "not this guy" your vote would change to "none of the above", in which case if no one received 50% + 1 of the "votes cast" a second vote would be necessary. In this way no one need be afraid of "wasting" their vote, plots to deliberately split the vote would be less likely, and we wouldn't be forced into voting for the "lesser of two evils".

Posted by Deb Wells on 08/04/10
Last updated 08/04/10

Missourians went to the polls on August 3 to vote on Proposition C - the first state in the nation to put health care freedom to the vote of the people.

938,782 Missourians cast their vote, and an astounding 71.1% voted to change Missouri law to deny the government the authority to penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or to infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful health care services.

667,680 Missourians voted YES to the Prop C language, effectively saying NO to ObamaCare.

The passage of the proposition is one more step toward health care freedom in Missouri.  The results of the Prop C vote will be a solid reference point, as Health Care Freedom legislation with "teeth" is introduced in the Missouri House and Senate in the next legislative session for passage and signature by the Missouri Governor.

Posted 08/04/10 American Epirus Omaha, NE

Congratulations, Missouri!!

Posted 08/04/10 BruceKoerber Cedar Rapids, IA

Can Iowa follow the Show Me State?

Posted 08/13/10 GoNuclear Saint Louis, MO

I appreciate the public sentiment, but I doubt that this prop. will do anything. Why? The State of Missouri accepts federal funding, giving the federal govt. the power of regulation in any area federal funding touches. Secondly, Missouri has a state income tax, and, like all other states that have income taxes, the only way to incur liability for it is to incur liability for federal income tax. Therefore, the State of Missouri has a vested interest in going along to get along with the federal govt in tax matters, which Obamacare is ... it ONLY APPLIES TO TAXPAYERS... which brings me to my last point ... most people incur liability for federal income tax via participation in Social Security, which is, according to the federal govt., write and ask at http://www.ssa.gov "100% voluntary and not required to live OR WORK in the United States". HOWEVER ... in spite of now law, it is Corporate America that forces people into the system by refusing to hire without that number. If you USE that number and make yourself liable for FICA, federal income tax, state income tax, and even local income tax, you ALSO make yourself liable now for Obamacare. In essense, you are in a contractual situation with the federal govt., and who is the State of Missouri to interfere? There IS an EFFECTIVE counter to ALL of the crappy stuff being pushed on us ... since it all ties into SSN use, and since SSN use is voluntary, if the State of Missouri were serious about Liberty ... lets get a law passed that would require anyone anytime anywhere for any reason asking for an SSN to give a complete, plain language disclosure, including rights waived and tax liabilities incurred. THAT is how to kill Obamacare and the rest of the slave system. If someone receives a plain language disclosure and still signs up for it all, that is his business. Those who want Liberty can simply walk away from it with full disclosure in place. Pete