Today's Document

oozey mess
we're not kids anymore.

#extradirty

Love Begins
Cosimo Galluzzi

JVL

if i look back, i am lost
tumblr dot com
No title available
h
occasionally subtle

izzy's playlists!

pixel skylines
Not today Justin
No title available
Three Goblin Art
Sweet Seals For You, Always

No title available
ojovivo

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia

seen from Türkiye

seen from Germany

seen from Germany

seen from Italy
seen from Greece
seen from United States
seen from Canada

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Liechtenstein
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Brazil
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
@binghamforreal
"Paint me like one of your French girls..."
Maybe you are relatively new to this idea of conservatism. Maybe you were afraid of conservatives or conservatism because you thought we are just a bunch of greedy, self-centered people. Maybe you just prefer to ‘stay out of it’, but you have been paying attention to the news of the day and have a new level of “caring” about what happens in the public square. Maybe you once believed that the government was “for you” but now what the Democrats (and some Republicans) have been doing over the last 2-4 years (or longer!) has made you think again. So let me explain in detail what being conservative, or particularly what being a Constitutional conservative means to me.
I Rise in Support of the Amendment
By no stretch of language is an Article V Convention of States with a limited purpose of reigning in the Federal government abuses and officials a Constitutional Convention. A Constitutional Convetnion is the rewriting of the whole governing document as the Framers were given the task to amend the Articles of Confederation, "to render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate for the exigencies of the Union." A limited Convention of States is meant to perfect our governing document.
Constitutional Convention was a term used by a radical Liberal Justice Burger and other Liberal cohorts to silence states from using their authority to overturn their decisions.
Nullification is not a right of the States. Why are we calling to assert a purely theoretical right? Convening to propose IS a right. States cannot act as a legislative and judiciary above the Federal level as Virginia was rightly rebuked for putting forth its resolution to nullify. People authorize the Constitution's powers, not the States.
Texas did not call an Article V Convention in 1977, as it is not listed in a database of called Conventions. There are 27 resolutions in the 2012 Republican platform a Convention of States can potentially fulfill.
This, as Mark Levin says, is Federalism at work.
--
Sadly I was not able to cite all of the rich resources I listed above, This speech or resources are just the surface of the wealth of knowledge that is becoming available in regard to the history and understanding of the Article V process. I'd encourage everyone to check out Convention of States, Rob Natelson, and the ongoing series on RightScoop.
I gave my speech in favor of an amendment to strike new language from Collin County's proposed revisions to the 2012 Republican platform that opposes a Constitutional Conventions. In my opinion, the revisions equate two vastly different things, and cuts off our chance to stop the encroachment of the Federal government. Our amendment was defeated but I feel confident that our testimonies encouraged others to seriously look at the matter.
This just means we'll need to take our fight to the State Convention.
Convention of States
Discussion #1: Zombie Doctrine, Tactics, and the Liberty Amendments
Discussion #2: Run Away!
Discussion #3: An Invitation to Our Friends on the Left
Discussion #4: What If They Hijack the Convention?
Discussion #5: How much power do the states have?
Discussion #6: Amendments on Spending and Taxes
Discussion #7: Tracking Our Progress
Discussion #8: Naysayers
Discussion #9: the filthy habit of continuing resolutions
Discussion #10: The Article Five process is how we go on offense
Discussion #11: ArticleFiveProcess site news
Discussion #12: Cutting Back The Bureaucracy
Discussion #13: Activism, and the Scope of the Problem
Discussion #14: The Missing Balance and the Many Applications
Discussion #15: Our Cities: The Real Misery Index
Discussion #16 – A Few Quick Notes
Discussion #17 – Why All The Lies?
Discussion #18 – #Shutuppery
Discussion #19 – The Kooks and Neoconfederates Edition
Discussion #20 – Nullification: don’t do an image search!
Discussion #21 – Frequently Asked Questions
Discussion #22 – Just the Video
Discussion #23 – Because the Internet, that’s why
Discussion #24 – Likely Success of an Article Five Convention Efforts
My advice to anyone who hears talk of “national unity” is to grab your wallet and run, as fast as you can. There is no reason to expect anything approaching unanimous consensus on anything but a few core issues, most of which are nicely covered in the Constitution. There are not many activist projects “everyone,” or even nearly everyone, energetically supports. Therefore, there aren’t many things a lawful and humble federal government should be doing. How does it make sense to seek, or demand, “unity” from a nation of 300 million diverse people, scattered across dramatically different regions?
And yet, when the invocation of the “nuclear option,” which the Post, Times, and Reid found morally repugnant in 2005, served to benefit them in 2013, they all reversed their positions on cue. What does this tell you about how intellectually and morally corrupt all of these partisans are?
here’s no pretense of logic, legal authority, or anything except pure politics to these decisions.
Today, ThinkProgress has a story on a protest in Dallas, Texas, at which a pro-Second Amendment group called Open Carry Texas rallied against an anti-Second Amendment group called Moms Demand Action: On Saturday, nearly 40 armed men, women, and children waited outside a Dallas, Texas area restaurant to protest a membership meeting for the state chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a gun safety advocacy group formed in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. According to a spokeswoman for Moms Demand Action (MDA), the moms were inside the Blue Mesa Grill when members of Open Carry Texas (OCT) — an open carry advocacy group — “pull[ed] up in the parking lot and start[ed] getting guns out of their trunks.” The group then waited in the parking lot for the four MDA members to come out. The spokeswoman said that the restaurant manager did not want to call 911, for fear of “inciting a riot” and waited for the gun advocates to leave. The group moved to a nearby Hooters after approximately two hours. At the top of the ThinkProgress story is this rather alarming picture, in which the group appears to be hunting in a parking lot: Ouch. ThinkProgress claims, too, that openly carrying rifles in this way is illegal in Texas: Licensed gun owners are allowed to carry concealed weapons, but Texas is one of six states that prohibits open carry of firearms. Attorney General Greg Abbott, a likely Republican successor for Gov. Rick Perry (R), has vowed to permit concealed handgun owners to display their firearms in public. Four GOP contenders for lieutenant governor similarly hope to put in place open carry laws if elected. Over at Forbes, Rick Ungar makes a similar claim: For those of you who would suggest that the members of Open Carry Texas were simply engaging in their Constitutional right to gather and protest what was occurring inside the restaurant, you would be wrong. While the group is certainly entitled to protest (although there are questions raised about them doing so on private property without invitation as was the case here), they are not, according to Texas law, entitled to do so by openly showing their weapons. While Texas permits licensed gun owners to carry concealed weapons, Texas does not permit the open carry of guns. Indeed, it is the desire to change this law that the Open Carry Texas group is all about. Accordingly, Open Carry’s chosen method to make its point and preferences known is not only to break the law but to severely frighten unarmed people in the process. As one might expect, none of this is quite true. For a start, the picture above is deeply misleading. As one Twitter user showed me, the group was, in fact, posing for a picture. (UPDATE: This Facebook page suggests that it was Moms Demand Action that took both pictures!) What a difference 90 degrees makes. As for the claim that open carry is illegal in Texas? No, not quite. Texas has laws that prohibit the open carrying of handguns, yes. But it does not have laws that prohibit the open carrying of long guns. The group had long guns. As it is everywhere else, it is illegal in Texas for those carrying guns to disturb the peace, to intimidate, to brandish, or to threaten other citizens. But peaceful carrying is allowed in Texas, and there is no exception for demonstrations. This New York Times article, detailing a recent protest at the Alamo, makes this abundantly clear, as does this photograph from the TruthAboutGuns blog: As a matter of personal taste, I dislike the tactics that Open Carry Texas used, and I think they got close to “intimidation.” Unlike the protest depicted above, targeting a small group while carrying rifles strikes me as a counter-productive and mean strategy and one likely to turn off people who are instinctively on Second Amendment advocates’ side. Regardless of the legality of the thing, it is almost certainly ill-advised to alarm people in the name of making them feel more comfortable around guns. Nevertheless, ThinkProgress and Rick Ungar are simply wrong with their insinuations. I will be charitable and presume that this was the product of a typical ignorance of the subject rather than a deliberate desire to mislead. But wrong is still wrong, whatever its cause.
Omg