Parler and National File battle over Article V, there is only one right answer

2
440

Dan Bongino came down hard on The National File for comments made about the Article V Convention that the Parler CEO Mark Meckler hopes to launch. Bongino is a co-owner of Parler.

About Article V, “While backed by a number of prominent conservative figures, it could leave the Constitution wide open to be rewritten and amended by George Soros and other leftists, who support similar attempts to call a convention,”  National File reported.

Bongino claimed The National File’s report came straight from Gab competitor Andrew Torba. Jack Hadfield at The National File says he had not consulted with Torba. Rather, he posted it because he thinks it’s in the public’s best interests to hear the other opinion.

“Whenever Parler has even a little bit of success, getting back online, you will notice a story about Parler being owned by George Soros, operated by George Soros,” Bongino said. “It appears every time Parler has some degree of success. It’s a scam run by an unethical competitor,” he added.

Bongino described this individual, apparently Torba, as “a very immature, childish buffoon,” “a total clown,” and “the most unethical guy I have ever dealt with in my life.”

We here at the Sentinel have no idea about any of this, and we love The National File, Parler, Gab, and Dan Bongino. but we do agree with Hadfield on Article V.

I believe the idea was raised early on, perhaps first by Mark Levin, who we love here at the Sentinel. However, an Article V convention opens our rights up to everyone. Given that the hard left is so powerful and fights so hard and Republicans are so weak, we say no thanks.

SOME GOOD CONSERVATIVES COULD BE WRONG

Radio talk show host Mark Levin and others are pushing for a constitutional convention (a convention of the states) to bring us back to our constitutional roots. Levin’s book on the subject suggests the situation is desperate, and it is. Whole states are signing on to the movement. Progressives also want a Convention of States and there are fears they could hijack this one.

American Center for Law and Justice Executive Director Jordan Sekulow believes religious liberty is adequately protected by the present Constitution though he hasn’t commented on the Convention itself.

“The wisdom of our Founding Fathers is still very apparent today. The U.S. Constitution clearly protects the religious freedom of our citizens. In this country, we are free to believe and worship as we chose. In our view, there’s no reason to amend the Constitution,” Sekulow said.

Conservatives want to hold a Con-Con on select issues which they say will protect from a runaway Convention.

THE MARXIST CONSTITUTION

At least three Obama administration advisers and officials, including regulatory czar Cass Sunstein, want a “progressive constitution” by the year 2020. Leftists have been pushing for this since FDR. They would look at a Convention of States as a means to an opportunity if they can hijack it.

Soros, Holder, Podesta, Sunstein, Obama had looked for ways to rewrite the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. For all intents and purposes, Biden’s term is Obama’s third.

A 2005 conference sponsored by Soros’ Open Society and Podesta’s Center for American Progress at Yale Law School kick-started the movement. Also involved in the development of the conference was the ACS, an anti-Federalist group.

Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University, wrote in a 2009 New York Times Magazine piece about so-called liberal justice: “If this new understanding of legal liberalism can be traced back to a single moment, it was in April 2005, when the American Constitution Society and other progressive groups sponsored a conference at Yale Law School called ‘The Constitution in 2020.’”

The purpose of the conference was to reformulate the constitution and Bill of Rights in accordance with the Progressive (Marxist – Socialist) vision.

Former Czar Sunstein explained what a Progressive (Socialist-Marxist) Bill of Rights would look like. People would have a constitutional right to “useful jobs” in farms and industries. [This would require the nationalization of farms and industries.] The government would prevent “unfair competition.” Their idea of unfair competition is any competition except that which is granted by the government.

In Sunstein’s book of 2004, “The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’S Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever,” he saw his imperatives as constitutive commitments. It mimics the UN’s Socialist Declaration of Human Rights.

PROGRESSIVES INFILTRATED BEFORE IT BEGAN

Another reason to be concerned about the movement started by Mark Levin is that it has been infiltrated by Progressive ideas even before it began.

Some of the groups pushing for their own Con-Con (Convention of States) are George Soros groups. Could they usurp a convention through the delegates? Proponents say no.

The American Constitution Society (ACS) is the main organization behind the Con-Con movement to ensure a more “progressive” constitution, having received more than $2,201,500 from Soros’ Open Society since 2002. The funders for ACS are the Barbra Steisand Foundation, the Sandler Foundation, and George Soros’ Open Society Foundations. Eric H Holder Jr. is a board member,  Janet Reno is a Board of Advisor member.

The Soros-backed Wolf PAC is pushing for a convention, claiming the goal is to take big money out of politics. Other Soros groups pushing for the Con-Con are Alliance for Democracy, Center for Media and Democracy, Code Pink, Independent Progressive Politics Network, Progressive Democrats of America, Sierra Club, Occupy Wall Street, The Young Turks, and Vermont for Single Payer, WND reported in 2014.

They would try to usurp any Convention of States and demand compromise.

STATE LEGISLATORS CANNOT CHOOSE THE DELEGATES

State legislators cannot choose the delegates and once underway, a Con-Con cannot control them. Another problem is delegates control the outcome. In 2012, there were more Muslim delegates at the Democratic National Convention than Montana, Utah, and Oklahoma put together though they are 1% of the population. Their sponsors are the terror-tied organization CAIR.

Two-thirds of the states have to approve Amendments to the Constitution and that is the fail-safe but in 1787 that was changed from 100% of the states for approval to two-thirds by Article V of the Constitution. What is to stop our Congress from using this as precedent?

Chief Justice Warren 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. Congress 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. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don’t like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress “for the sole and express purpose.”

While there are many reasons to believe the Con-Con can be controlled, there are as many or more to believe it can’t be. The most overriding one is that the Progressives want a Con-Con also and have the ability to hijack it because they act lawlessly and covertly. A Con-Con could be a new weakness to exploit. Do we really need to amend the Constitution or protect it better? Nullification might be a safer route.

What do you think? There can only be one right answer and we had better get it right. We say NO to the Convention of States.


PowerInbox
0 0 votes
Article Rating
2 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jen
Jen
1 year ago

I have to say that I think National File is one of the best at investigative journalism and I like Bongino. Seems like everyone is stressed, etc. in these precarious times.

Greg
Greg
1 year ago

Agreed, A Convention of States is a dangerous idea. Rallies I attended at the State Capitol had a good many pushing for the Convention of States. I decided not to argue with the people pushing for such actions. The only reason I can imagine for Levin supporting this movement is the “belief” that many of the states are Republican controlled. What we have seen in the past four years should dispel the myth that republicans have the interest of the public at heart. A common theme by national leaders is that States are “best equipped”. Many individuals in the states fully realize there is oftentimes more corruption at the state level. You go to a State politician and they will blame the Federal and direct you there. You go to the Federal politician and will be told that is a “state” matter. And politicians wonder why Everyone is fed up with All politicians.