Thursday, June 23, 2016

#NeverTrump Movement Same Players as the ConCon "Convention of States" Movement

As the movement develops to try to change the rules at the GOP convention, the players involved become more obvious as people we have seen working together before, for an Article V/ConCon convention of states.

Clearly, they (and their corporate backers) see a Trump presidency as a threat to their long term plans. Much has already been written on the problems with their push for a change to the Constitution.

The following major participants in the current #NeverTrump movement should be noted and their past affiliations well known:

ERIC O'KEEFE (working with Leo Linbeck III) - Libertarian

Part of the "Citizens in Charge Foundation" currently running ads to encourage delegates to "vote their conscience".

Started the Convention of States (ConCon) effort with Leo Linbeck III as an offshoot of their Citizens for Self Governance:

It has been reported that the Convention of States concept originated with Ned and Drew Ryun of American Majority. Ned and Drew are the sons of former U.S. Representative Jim Ryun, who is currently with The Madison Project, a fundraising effort for conservative candidates. American Majority was funded "above 75 percent" by the Sam Adams Alliance, Eric O'Keefe's (no longer active) conservative think tank. Eric O'Keefe (former director of the National Libertarian Party) and Leo Linbeck III also happen to be partners in both the formation of Citizens for Self Governance and their own super PAC, Campaign for Primary Accountability. Citizens for Self Governance is the source of the Convention of States effort.
With the Ryun's close ties to Michael Farris, it is no wonder that he would be in the position of leading this effort. Ned founded Generation Joshua, which Farris put into action through his Home School Legal Defense Association.
More on O'Keefe:
Board of Directors of Wisconsin Club for Growth, a state-wide network of thousands of pro-growth Wisconsinites, from all walks of life, who believe that prosperity and opportunity come through economic freedom.
Board of Directors of Citizens for Self-Governance, an organization dedicated to advancing self-governance.
Board of Directors of Citizens in Charge, an organization working to protect and expand ballot initiative rights.
Former member of the Board of Directors of the Center for Competitive Politics, a group that works to promote and defend First Amendment rights to free political speech, assembly, and petition.
Former member of the Board of Directors of the Institute for Humane Studies. Associated with George Mason University, IHS supports the achievement of a freer society by discovering and facilitating the development of talented students, scholars, and other intellectuals.
Co-founder of the Campaign for Primary Accountability, a nonpartisan Super PAC dedicated to breaking the cycle of incumbency by targeting Democrats and Republicans in congressional primary races. (Also with Leo Linbeck III)
Past chairman of the Sam Adams Alliance, a former organization that cultivated citizen activism.
Former member of the board of directors of the national Club for Growth
Former member of the board of directors of the Cato Institute

PAUL JACOB- President of Citizens in Charge

Eric O"Keefe's Citizens in Charge shares the same address with Liberty Initiative (13168 Centerpointe Way #202
Woodbridge, VA 22193) and share Paul Jacob as an operative.
Paul was a Libertarian draft dodger in the 80's, featured in this Rolling Stone article at the time:
Along with O'Keefe, worked for U.S. Term Limits and Sam Adams Alliance.
He wrote here in promotion of an Article V ConCon:

STEVE LONEGAN - Courageous Conservatives PAC
Former NJ State Chairman for Cruz campaign.
This PAC originally supported Cruz and has now been turned into a delegate manipulation effort.

Lonegan put together the Jackson Hole Summit, bankrolled by Robert Mercer, who also bankrolled the Cruz campaign. Very insightful article:

Lonegan was also the state chair for the Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity previous to this (2007-2013). No surprise, Americans for Prosperity has pushed for an Article V/ConCon.

Farris published his anti-Trump "end of the Religious Right" rant on the anti-Trump Christian Post this week:
No coincidence, he heads the Convention of States, founded by Eric O"Keefe and Leo Linbeck III. He will ally with anyone to forward this movement.

In addition to his backing from Robert Mercer (above under "Steve Lonegan"), Cruz has close ties to Leo Linbeck/Eric O'Keefe and ALEC, all huge promoters of the Article V/ConCon. Extensive ties.

Dad did serve up a couple of interesting nuggets about a young Ted Cruz. Like this one:

Ted enters high school, the Free Enterprise Institute organizes a group of five kids, called them the Constitutional Corroborators, now Ted is reading the The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, and each of the five kids memorized the entire US Constitution.

He did, however, neglect to note that the Free Enterprise Institute is a project of Texas builder billionaire Leo Linbeck, III, and that Ted Cruz serves as Trustee of that organization. He is in august company, with fellow trustees ranging from powerful Texas Republicans to billionaires and bankers. It appears that the junior senator from Texas has connections in high places, and that his high school passion has paid off handsomely for him.

Cruz has pushed hard for a ConCon:

Obviously encouraging delegates to "vote their conscience". Also bankrolled by the Koch's.


Close ties to all of these and two of the biggest promoters of the Article V/ConCon. Also two of the biggest attackers of the Trump candidacy.

Monday, April 11, 2016

The Christian Post's Anti-Trump Declaration: They May Have Left Out a Few Relevant Details

The Blaze, this weekend, made a point of making sure their readers were aware that The Christian Post had clearly advised Christians not to vote for Donald Trump, citing the CP article where the editorial staff tears him apart. Glenn Beck, as we know, is an active Ted Cruz endorser and campaigner, so it is not surprising that The Blaze has highlighted many anti-Trump pieces from The Christian Post. Although there is certainly nothing wrong with anyone's political opinions being expressed, there are a few things that could be coloring those opinions that people should be aware of. Cruz campaign workers and pro-amnesty activism were not mentioned in this Christian Post article, but these are clearly relevant.
The CP article begins this way, noting that this is a first for them:
Editors' Note: The Christian Post has not taken a position on a political candidate before today. We are making an exception because Trump is exceptionally bad and claims to speak for and represent the interests of evangelicals.

We the senior editors of The Christian Post encourage our readers to back away from Donald Trump.
Some of the "Christian leaders" mentioned by name in their article, with links to their own Trump attacking articles, also happen to be Cruz endorsers or are actually working for the campaign. There is not a thing wrong with that, but it would certainly motivate them to encourage voters not to vote for the opponent. Among those mentioned:
Dr. Michael Brown, well known radio show host and activist officially endorsed Cruz.
Kristi Burton Brown is Cruz campaign county co-chair in Colorado. She is an editor for Live Action News, an op-ed contributor to the Christian Post, a county co-chair for Ted Cruz in Colorado, and an Associate Scholar for the pro-life think tank, Charlotte Lozier Institute.
From her LinkedIn page:
County Co-Chair
Ted Cruz Colorado Grassroots Campaign
2015 – Present (1 year)
Speaking, writing, and using social media to recruit volunteers and supporters for the Cruz campaign.
What might be of much more concern is that many on The Christian Post editorial/advisory board, as well as a few others named in their article, have been quite active with the very progressive and Soros funded  "Evangelical Immigration Table," which is a pro-amnesty movement that had worked hard with Obama to push through "immigration reform."  Jim Wallis is also one of the biggest activists in this movement. Considering that Trump's biggest issue has been his intent to fight amnesty and see that we have serious border enforcement, it is clear that his agenda is as far from theirs as it could be.

Read the rest HERE.

"Democracy Spring" is Just the Newest Label on an Old Package - ConCon's Lessig is At It Again

It was not a surprise, after reading the story on about "the largest civil disobedience action of the century", to find that Professor Lawrence Lessig is one of the main coordinators of this planned action. Although using Trump as the excuse-of-the-day, Lessig never misses any opportunity to push for his version of campaign finance reform, which was what his support of a Constitutional Convention/Convention of States with Mark Meckler,Michael Farris and others was all about.
Democracy Spring, according to "some of the same radical groups involved in shutting down Donald Trump's Chicago rally last week are plotting a mass civil disobedience movement to begin next month." Well, of course, they are the same groups. They are always the same. Most of these sponsoring groups are also behind the Leftist's version of a ConCon, among them, Lessig's Rootstrikers, Cenk Uygar and his Wolf Pack as well as Medea Benjamin's Code Pink. You will see many of the same here on their MoveToAmend site.Why? Campaign finance reform. Anyone who cannot figure out that reform they want will ensure their power indefinitely is naive, indeed. Why do you think Obama was so furious with the SCOTUS ruling on that topic? It's a vital part of their vision.
So, what has this to do with Trump? Nothing (as he has not even taken big PAC money for his campaign). He is just their latest rallying point for the same push they have always had. Using the current high voltage emotions in the campaign season, they are pushing the very same things with a new label.

Read the rest HERE.

Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Article V Conventions, "No Labels,” Trump, and the Constitution: Who Do You Trust?

As we have tried to present in the past, many of the coordinators of the various Article V Convention efforts are far from conservative. Although they present themselves as great, conservative defenders of freedom to conservative and Tea Party groups nationwide, their backgrounds and intermingling with far left groups tells a different story.

A fine example of this happened Monday morning at the No Labels Convention in New Hampshire, where candidates including Donald Trump were invited to speak. Breitbart News correctly identified the No Labels group with their headline, "Donald Trump Defends Tea Party to Left Leaning Crowd". Trump was questioned by the crowd about the Tea Party, funding Planned Parenthood and his stance on women. When he gave the following response, he was audibly booed by the crowd (via Breitbart):

“I love the Tea Party,” Trump responded when an audience member asked about his thoughts on the Tea Party and the House Freedom Caucus, as well as the possibility of a government shutdown over defunding Planned Parenthood.

“These are people in all fairness, these are people that love this country. They do love this country and they want the country to be great,” Trump defended. “They don’t want Planned Parenthood funded… I understand that.”

Clearly, this crowd is far from conservative and no fans of the Tea Party or conservative values, yet No Labels co-founder Mark McKinnon was a key part of the Compact for America movement for a Constitutional Convention. Please refer back to our 2014 article, where we illustrated just who Mark McKinnon was, along with other Article V proponents including Lawrence Lessig and Mark Meckler.

Those who are truly familiar with these people and the No Labels group certainly know them to be far from conservative. Rush Limbaugh has been onto them for years. This is a bit of how he described them on today's radio show:

You know the No Labels group?  The No Labels group is basically a bunch of Republican liberals.  They are Republicans who don't like conservatives, and they don't want to be associated with conservatism.  They want to be seen as intellectually elite, scholarly, superior, and they love being thought of as moderates.

They're calling it the Problem Solvers convention.  The No Labels Problem Solvers convention.  The only problem they've ever solved is getting unemployed Republican strategists off the street.  And that's about it.

According to the Breitbart piece, Bryan McCormack would not attend for this reason:

Bryan McCormack, Executive Director at the Cornerstone Policy Research, a pro-family organization,  said he didn’t attend due to the ideology of those attending.

“We at Cornerstone decided not attend the No Labels conference due to the overwhelmingly liberal subject matter. We have to start looking at these groups for what they are, an infiltration of conservative ideals under the guise of a collaborative spirit,” McCormack told Breitbart News.

This is but one example of many. As we have attempted to convey in article after article about the Article V Convention/ConCon crowd, many of these people are far from who they appear to be. If you cannot believe in who they are and what they stand for, than how can you accept their scholarship and recommendations when it could change the very foundation of our nation? You can't.

Note: For a list of various resources on the legalities and the people behind a Convention of States/Article V effort, please visit this link:
The Definitive Study List of Problems with the Article V – Convention of States – Con Con Movement

Friday, July 3, 2015

FDR's "Court Packing" Scheme Now an Inspiration for the Convention of States

Original post at Freedom Outpost.

This past week's Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions were devastating to many, with many areas of grave concern. From homosexual marriage to Obamacare to voter ID, this was a very left-leaning court with decisions that may have dire consequences.

Never letting a crisis go to waste, enter the Convention of States (COS) team, always prepared with an Article V Convention solution for everything. This week, the latest reason for an Article V Convention has become judicial reform. Of course, that was always a goal of leftist radical Lawrence Lessig (adviser to the CFA effort for an Article V Convention), whose outrage over the SCOTUS decision on campaign finance reform has always been his #1 cause. We recall that Lessig was the one, along with the COS' Mark Meckler, who convened the ConConCon back in the fall of 2011 and got the movement rolling.

Among those writing on the recent decisions, with an Article V Convention as the answer, of course, are Prof. Rob Natelson, Michael Farris, and others. What may be the most disturbing part of this comes from the article written by Michael Farris, where he actually suggests using the FDR "court packing" scheme:

FDR's solution to this problem was to limit the power of the individual justices by his famous court-packing scheme. He would increase the number of seats on the Supreme Court—they were old and over-worked and needed help. Armed with new appointments to make, FDR could remake the Court in his own image to achieve his desired political results.
Farris goes on to suggest a few ways something like this could work, using "superior political tactics."

My favorite is to follow FDR's court-packing idea but with vigor. Every state should be allowed to appoint a member of the Supreme Court. They could serve for a brief term, perhaps eight years. Removing Supreme Court appointments and confirmations from Washington, DC, is the only realistic way to ensure true judicial independence. Otherwise, you get the power cabal that we have in place which was clearly in play in this week's Obamacare decision. If Congress messes up, don't worry, the Supreme Court has got your back to preserve the relentless march towards the centralization of power.

Of course, all of these changes will require a constitutional amendment. And it would be naïve in the extreme to believe that Congress would propose an amendment to take away the power of their partners in power aggregation.

The only way these kind of changes can be made is through an Article V Convention of States. The Founders told us that there would come a day when the federal government would abuse its power. When that day arose, the States needed the ability to rein in the abuse of federal power by constitutional means.
Even in desperate times, is it the right move to encourage "court packing" and other schemes? If an Article V Convention is meant to correct past mistakes and corruption, should they be using the same underhanded, controlling tactics that FDR tried many years ago? Even many of FDR's supporters at the time refused to go along with it, and he was not able to get it passed. From "Enter Stage Right" magazine:

Everyone claimed some measure of victory. But in the end, the American people won the most because the Senate did exactly what its Judiciary Committee had recommended. The Senate "so emphatically rejected" FDR's court-packing scheme that no similar plan ever has been, or likely ever will be, "presented to the free representatives of the free people of America."
Apparently, Michael Farris and the people at the Convention of States beg to differ.

Tuesday, June 16, 2015 and Occupy, Hacktivists Working Together

(Originally appeared on

  On June 5th, protests took place all around the US as well as overseas against Child Protective Services (CPS) and promoting the passage of the Parental Rights Amendment. A more planned follow up event is coming in August. The amendment was authored by Michael Farris, founder of, where he serves on the board along with Grover Norquist. According to the many promotional pages on Facebook, craigslist posts and Twitter posts, objectives of the protest were:

Our objective:
*Repeal Adoptions and Safe Families Act of 1997
*Compensation for wrongfully involved families
*Full FBI investigation of CPS/family courts
*The passing of the Parental Rights Amendment
*Transparency in Family Court
*Legal Accountability of CPS

A few of the links to these events can be examined here:

Hacktivists/Anonymous are behind this effort, but the promotional poster also has across the top as seen here:

Anonymous hacktivists ("We Are Legion") have organized this event. There is no doubt that the organizers themselves are linking it with Farris', as seen in many places. Here, they promote the movie put together by

Most people would agree that there are serious problems with CPS, from both extremes. We have heard of cases where children were unfairly taken from parents as well as many cases where problems were reported and CPS did not act when they should have. Oversight and reform is needed, and few would argue that point. However, if the ParentalRights organization is knowingly teaming up with Occupiers and hacktivists to fight their battles, they are putting us all at risk. There is no doubt that the hacktivist movement has consisted of anarchists and Marxists. Is this the type of solution we are looking for? Do they think this is wise, to work on issues together with people of such radical ideology?

An email inquiry to received a response from Michael Ramey, their Director of Communications & Research, stating that they were not the sponsors of this event, but they did give permission for their website to be used in the promotions.

"We gave them permission to use our name, since passage of the Parental Rights Amendment is among their primary goals. In that respect, we certainly stand with them."

We have seen this coalition with radical Leftists from Michael Farris and his fellow Convention of States Article V proponents before, and it has caused much concern among many conservatives. As argued here when it regarded Farris and the Convention of States working with radical groups, is there no limit to who you are willing to work with, or is the agenda all that matters? It seems only two conclusions can be drawn from these repeated coalitions. Either very questionable judgement is being used, or these Libertarian "conservatives" may not be conservatives at all.