Wednesday, 15 January 2014 09:38

Socialists and Soros Fight for Article V Convention

Written by 

Recently, The New American has reported on the efforts by radio talk show host Mark Levin and others to push for a constitutional convention (a convention of the states, in the parlance of the proponents).

In his new book, Levin argues that such a convention is the last hope “to reform the federal government from its degenerate, bloated, imperial structure back to its (smaller) republican roots.”

Unfortunately, many otherwise well-educated and well-meaning conservatives have succumbed to Levin’s siren song and they have gone so far as to deny the constitutionality of nullification and to insist that an Article V convention is the only way to restore the balance of federalism in our Republic.

Fighting for the Constitution as given to us by our Founders is a noble goal and the anxiety of the conservative con-con collaborators is understandable. We at The New American and The John Birch Society welcome the help of all those courageous enough to enlist in the battle to defeat the forces of federal absolutism. We part company with those pushing for an Article V convention, however, and we believe that a constitutional convention is not the right way to stop the federal assault on our Constitution and the freedoms it protects.

The New American and many other liberty-minded organizations promote nullification as the “rightful remedy” for curing the constant federal overreaching. We believe that as the agent of the states, the federal government has exceeded its contractual authority and the states as principals have the right to refuse to ratify any such usurpation.

Since the publication of Levin’s admittedly popular book, the battle between those promoting nullification and those advocating for an Article V constitutional convention is a topic getting plenty of coverage in the alternative media.

There is another uncomfortable aspect of the Article V movement that is not being discussed, however, but needs to be, particularly in light of the good people who have associated themselves with it.

Within the ranks of those clamoring for an Article V convention are found numerous extremely radical, progressive, and socialist organizations that otherwise would have little in common with the conservatives fighting on the same side.

Wolf-Pac is one of the groups that this reporter suspects many Levin listeners would be surprised to know is their compatriot in a call for a con-con. 

On its website, Wolf-Pac pushes for an Article V “convention of the states” as the best way to accomplish its “ultimate goal:"

To restore true democracy in the United States by pressuring our State Representatives to pass a much needed 28th Amendment to our Constitution which would end corporate personhood and publicly finance all elections in our country.

In order to persuade Americans to join its cause, Wolf-Pac will:

inform the public by running television commercials, radio ads, social media, internet ads, and using the media platform of the largest online news show in the world, The Young Turks. 

The Young Turks? Most constitutionalists (and I imagine most fans of Mark Levin) don’t spend much time during the day watching the Young Turks, the YouTube-based news and entertainment channel that dubs itself the “world’s largest online news network.”

As unfamiliar as they may be with the Young Turks, it seems certain conservatives pushing for a con-con are even more unfamiliar with who pays the bills at this online purveyor of progressive ideology: George Soros (shown). Dan Gainor reports:

In fact, Soros funds nearly every major left-wing media source in the United States. Forty-five of those are financed through his support of the Media Consortium. That organization 'is a network of the country's leading, progressive, independent media outlets.' The list is predictable — everything from Alternet to the Young Turks.

That’s right. George Soros — the financier of global fascism —  is pumping millions of dollars into the same Article V campaign that is being promoted by Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and other popular conservative spokesmen. 

What will those in Wolf-Pac do if they are able to get “their amendment” proposed and accepted by an Article V convention? 

“Celebrate the fact that we had the courage and persistance [sic] to accomplish something truly amazing and historic together.”

Anything a group with this anti-constitutional agenda would do to our Constitution would certainly be historic — in the worst way.

This should be enough to convince all true conservatives, constitutionalists, and friends of liberty to run headlong away from the ranks of the Article V con-con army, regardless of how popular and persuasive their generals may be.

It will likely surprise these devoted, but deluded, Article V advocates that Wolf-Pac is just the tip of the iceberg. These good people would be wise to take a look at this heavily abbreviated roster of their radical fellow travelers in the con-con movement, each of which is a registered “founding member” of the “Move to Amend” coalition

Alliance for Democracy

Center for Media and Democracy

Code Pink

Independent Progressive Politics Network

Progressive Democrats of America

Sierra Club

Vermont for Single Payer

Mind you, hundreds more groups “committed to social and economic justice, ending corporate rule, and building a vibrant democracy” are gathered under this umbrella.

This hardly seems to be a corps that most Levin listeners would be happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with in the fight for a “convention of the states.” In fairness, these allies likely don’t share their conservative cohorts’ love and loyalty to the Constitution.

It’s time these right-minded men and women know with whom they are associating.

Its doubtful that Mark Levin’s legion of listeners would be as eager to get behind his Article V con-con agenda if they knew whom they were fighting beside and how radically their new allies want to change our beloved Constitution.

And that’s the problem. Regardless of the soothing words of Levin or others in the con-con camp, they cannot guarantee the outcome of such a convention. In fact, in light of the lists of leftist groups provided above, the results of the convention could be an outright scrapping of the Constitution written by the Founders in favor of one more in line with the progressive ideologies of Wolf-Pac, the Sierra Club, Code Pink, and others.

Remember, according to the history of Article V-style conventions, regardless of any state or congressional legislation requiring them to consider only one amendment (a balanced budget amendment, for example), the delegates elected to the convention would possess unlimited, though not unprecedented, power to propose revisions to the existing Constitution, based on the inherent right of the People in convention to alter or revise their government.

The mind boggles at the potential proposals that could come out of a convention composed of such radical representatives. 

Don’t forget, George Soros’s billions are funding these fringe groups and politicians aren't known for their ability to resist hefty campaign contributions.

Conservatives should shudder at the specter of a convention endowed with power of this magnitude, populated by activists who have a Soros credit card in their pocket and a commitment to “social justice” as their purpose. All the good intentions of the conservatives in the Article V camp would not be enough to force all these devastating changes to the Constitution back inside the progressive Pandora's Box.

Readers are encouraged to click the links provided in this article and to investigate for themselves the agenda of the various Article V advocates and to determine if it's worth the risk to our Constitution that would be posed by the presence of these groups in the "convention of the states."

Finally, the startling information set out in this article is not meant as an attack on Mark Levin or anyone else working to call a “convention of the states.” Rather, it is intended to help the thousands of committed constitutionalists who find themselves believing in the Article V gospel he’s preaching to realize who’s sitting in the pews with them and whose money built the church.

Photo of George Soros: AP Images

Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels frequently nationwide speaking on topics of nullification, the NDAA, the Second Amendment, and the surveillance state.  He is the co-founder of Liberty Rising, an educational endeavor aimed at promoting and preserving the Constitution. Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton and he can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Related articles:

Article V: Con-Con or Nothing Is the Cry of This Cause Célèbre

Article V Group Ignores States' Complicity in Federal Power Grab

Article V Convention: Dangerous Precedent, Dangerous Loyalties

Convention of States and Article V: Tearing Up the Talking Points

Compact for America Proposal Could Increase Federal Power

Convention of the States: Wrong on History, Nullification

Convention of the States: Scholars Ignore History

Repair vs. Restore: Why Constitution Doesn’t Need Article V Fix

In Defense of Con-Con, Meckler Chooses Ridicule Over Rebuttal

12 comments

  • Comment Link Darren Wolfe Saturday, 01 March 2014 12:13 posted by Darren Wolfe

    This just proves that the anti-federalists were were right. The constitution has failed to limit the govt & protect our rights. Now the con con scam. One day they might succeed. If not this year maybe next. Liberty will be dead for sure.

  • Comment Link Darren Wolfe Saturday, 01 March 2014 12:12 posted by Darren Wolfe

    This just proves that the anti-federalists were were right. The constitution has failed to limit the govt & protect our rights. Now the con con scam. One day they might succeed. If not this year maybe next. Liberty will be dead for sure.

  • Comment Link David Farrar Monday, 27 January 2014 23:42 posted by David Farrar

    To date, there have been well over 700 Article V resolutions filed with Congress, and yet not once has 34 states be able to pass an Article V resolution covering the same subject matter. This would give credence to those who say if, or when, 34 states do ever manage to agree on one, are a number of similar issues, that convention would be limited in their scope to the items contained in their resolutions only.

    As for me, I would hope when an Article V Convention of States is called into session, they would have as one of their items to confirm the definition of an Art. II, §I, cl. 4 natural born citizen. If left unattended, I can easily see but for the lack of a clearly defined definition of natural born (US) citizen, lives would be lost over the issue.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • Comment Link Heidi Preston Thursday, 23 January 2014 00:06 posted by Heidi Preston

    I like the way these "reformers" create a PROBLEM where none exists only to come up with a SOLUTION. The Constitution is NOT the PROBLEM, applying it is and so is ignoring it through executive orders. So as we can plainly see (those who have eyes to see...metaphorically speaking) the Constitution has remained a "faithful" document since it was written, the problem is in the elected people interpreting it and obviously (as proven by the call to reform it) NOT the Constitution as it stands.

    NO problem...no need for solutions. Get rid of the people causing the problem instead. Once you start with amendments, the Constitution will be subordinate to a higher Authority and who knows where they will come from...maybe even over seas. The United Nations already tells Countries who can and who can not bear arms and what kind, they say who is a humanitarian nation and who is not, they starve countries that don't bend to it's will yet they hold power over "humanitarian values"......yea, not so much. Our Constitution is just fine thank you Mr. Levin ( most of us only have this one country to claim and this one constitution to adhere to).

  • Comment Link Tionico Wednesday, 22 January 2014 23:12 posted by Tionico

    we must NOT have this convention until AFTER we have restored the Constitiution as written to full function once more. That would mean a near total overhaul (and perhaps some vigourous keelhauling) of the current FedGov. NSA spying, "police actions" in all corners of the world by our military, disbanding all of the unconstitutional FedGov agencies (Ed, Ag, DHS, TSA, DEA, the FED, NTHS, NLRB, FDA, EPA, BATF, HHS, Fannie and Freddie, and the list goes on. Why change what is a perfectly good (mostly) set of operating instructions which we refuse to use and replace it with..... what?

    And the fact that Soros is rabidly pushing for this is beyond scary.

  • Comment Link Tom Fiedler Wednesday, 22 January 2014 10:22 posted by Tom Fiedler

    Efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution while States cannot follow the mandate of Article I Section 10 that declares "No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts[.] ..." weakens both intent and letter of the Original Constitution.

    In a federal republic such as ours, we need to exhaust our remedies starting with our individual authority, proceed through the county, continue through the state before we alter the U.S. Constitution. We must take care not to bypass the authority we exercise at a specific and immediate level for the sake of a more general and remote level. Amendments 14, 16 and 17 have all greatly reduced the sovereignty of the several states. Amending the Constitution before those Amendments are repealed empowers the very usurpation those Amendments take from the states and deliver to the federal government viz. Congress.

    Amending the Constitution, regardless of method employed, be it Convention Of the States or instigated by Congress, must be pursuant to Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

    The phrase "... one or the other Mode of Ratification [which] may be proposed by the Congress; ...". Here the word "may" appears to refer to a choice restricted between, "... two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, ...". Both choices use the word "shall" so the word "may" appears to be restricted to those two choices.

    However, the Declaration of Independence states " ... the Right of the People to alter or to abolish [any Form of Government.] ..." Consequently Article V may have been ambiguously written on purpose to honor absolutely the right of the states and the people respectively to alter or abolish the current form of government. Perhaps that's what the COS proponents claim by saying the COS differs from other proposed Constitutional Conventions in that they will not be governed by Congress, but governed by the participating state delegations.

    Mrs. Powel (and through her, every inhabitant of the United States that cares) was given the charge to keep the republican form of government that Benjamin Franklin (and Article IV section 4) told us we have. Will we keep the republican form of government by unleashing our fellow citizens to amend the Constitution (what Hamiliton described in Federalist 84 as a binding contract of limitation)? As Hamilton points out, the more you amend a binding contract, the more specific authority you surrender to the limitation.

    What is to prevent George Soros and MOVE TO AMEND (https://movetoamend.org/) from running their own COS to transform our federal republic into the central democracy they so ardently advocate? We should not fuel their agenda by clamoring for (the possibly misplaced jurisdiction of) “liberty” amendments .

  • Comment Link Nelson Abdullah Sunday, 19 January 2014 11:29 posted by Nelson Abdullah

    My name is Nelson Abdullah and I am a conservative blogger. I write under the byline Oldironsides and my blog is called Conscience of a Conservative http://oldironsides-thesilentmajority.blogspot.com if you want to look at it. I researched the dangers of an Article 5 Constitutional Convention some years ago and wrote this on my blog in 2009. If you honestly want a discussion on this issue then consider all of the relevant arguments.

    I recently attended a rally organized by the Cincinnati Tea Party here in Northern Kentucky. After listening for an hour to two presentations on the real case behind global warming and the healthcare scare the president of the Tea Party began talking about the NEED for a new Constitutional Convention. He mentioned some good points but when I questioned him about the possibility of a rogue bunch of Liberals throwing out The Bill of Rights and trying to rewrite the entire Constitution he showed me how misinformed he was. He said that even if such an attempt was made the rewritten Constitution would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. WRONG. A Constitutional Convention does not function under the same rules that applies to an amendment to the Constitution. The delegates to the convention are appointed by the state legislatures to act in their place and with full autonomous authority. Their work needs only to be approved by the majority of the other delegates before it becomes our new Constitution.

    I though we had stopped the Doomsday machine, but I was wrong. That line has been used before in more than one Science Fiction movie but for now it is very real for every citizen of the United States.

    When I became interested in politics some forty years ago I learned of an effort back in the sixties to convene a new Constitutional Convention. The purpose then was to update a few of the provisions our Founding Fathers had overlooked, such as Balanced Budgets and the Equal Rights Amendment (does anyone remember the ERA). The idea back then was mostly endorsed by liberal groups as a way to permanently install their left-wing agenda on the rest of the country. Many conservatives fought against this and we all thought we had won the battle. We were wrong! Please keep reading.

    I just discovered that one rule of the process to convene a Constitutional Convention never dies. That rule, which calls for the state legislatures of 34 states to pass a resolution in favor of this, remains on the record forever. As of today 32 states have now done so and only two more are needed. The final push is concentrating on Ohio. Wyoming passed such a resolution ten years ago and has been trying ever since to find a way to rescind it but the law does not allow for that.

    What is the greatest threat to all of us if such a convention were convened? The delegates would have the authority to completely rewrite the present Constitution and eliminate the Bill of Rights, for one thing. Quite literally this would mean the end of the United States of America as we know it.

    " Chuck Baldwin, presidential candidate for the Constitution Party said "If called, a modern Constitutional Convention could declare the U.S. Constitution to be null and void, and could completely rewrite the document. For example, former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger once declared, '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.'"

    "At that point, there is no more United States of America. There would be no more Bill of Rights protecting individuals from governmental abuse and overreach. Furthermore, the principles of Natural Law would be forever removed as a basis of all our nation's laws and statutes. The nation that had been bequeathed to us by our forebears would be gone forever," he said."

    Kentucky is horse country yet some people who live here still don't know why draft horses wear blinders. In case you are unaware of what blinders are, they are masks placed on the outside of a horses eyes to prevent it from seeing what is around it. In other words, to keep the horse looking straight ahead and not get distracted. And don't forget, the horse doesn't put the blinders on himself, someone has to do it.

  • Comment Link Cynthia M. Fisher Friday, 17 January 2014 09:12 posted by Cynthia M. Fisher

    Some very chilling information in the new states constitution (posted above). Much like U.N. Agenda 21 and the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal being negotiated currently. The trade deals will connect the world under the global dominance of multi-national corporations. There will be no way out for humanity. It seems as if the current administration has been moving at light speed toward the agenda.

  • Comment Link William Jarett Thursday, 16 January 2014 05:32 posted by William Jarett

    The number one problem with an Article V Convention is the quality of people who would be sent there. It would degenerate into the process that governs Washington today, the corrupt insiders rewriting the framework of the nation. You'd end up with a situation where the multinational banks and "free" trade corporations can literally enshrine their theft of our country into the Constitution itself!

  • Comment Link Joyce Wednesday, 15 January 2014 22:54 posted by Joyce

    As Livingston always says: Keep some powder dry!

  • Comment Link gmiller Wednesday, 15 January 2014 14:08 posted by gmiller

    This is what the left has in store for us:

    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/master_file/newstatesconstitution.htm

  • Comment Link MemphisMickey Wednesday, 15 January 2014 11:24 posted by MemphisMickey

    Tennessee only two years ago rescinded all concon calls. Now they are piling on new concon calls. NO ARTICLE V CONVENTION!!!!

Please Log In To Comment
Log in