Response to Jim Talent
Jim Talent's name has been used, without his actual signature, as a last-minute gimmick by "Convention of States Action" to push its Con Con bill, HCR 5 (SCR 4), in Missouri.
Less than a year before his untimely passing, Justice Antonin Scalia called it a "horrible idea" to hold a constitutional convention. Phyllis Schlafly was always strongly against allowing a constitutional convention to rewrite our Constitution. There is no way to limit a constitutional convention, as nearly all legal scholars recognize. Article V of the Constitution expressly states that "amendments", plural, may be proposed at a constitutional convention once one is convened. The Second Amendment would surely be repealed as one of the amendments. Then the amendments, once adopted by a Con Con, would become a runaway freight train that state legislatures would rush to pass. It could not be stopped at that point.
Last July, the Republican National Platform Committee nearly unanimously rejected an attempt to add an Article V Convention to the platform.
Talent's surprise letter fails to disclose for whom Jim Talent now works. In fact, in late March he became a "Senior Fellow" at the "Bipartisan Policy Center," a group of liberal Establishment types who promote globalist goals. The Bipartisan Policy Center is an advocate of more immigration, which Talent supported in the form of expanding work-related visas while he was briefly in the U.S. Senate. These work-related immigration visas have taken away good jobs from Americans, and most voters oppose them today. In addition, Talent repeatedly voted for the phony "free trade" agreements with China and other foreign countries, which are supported by the globalists behind the Con Con but opposed by most Americans.
The secret billionaires who are funding the push to rewrite the Constitution have their own agenda. They are pro-immigration, for example, and even fund groups that demand drivers' licenses for illegal aliens. As reported by TIME magazine, in an article entitled "The Koch Brothers Are Helping More Immigrants Get Help," billionaires are pouring millions into benefits for illegal aliens:
"Through the Koch network’s LIBRE Initiative, volunteers and advisers are helping immigrants study for drivers’ license exams so they have some form of government ID, others prepare for citizenship tests and still others earn a G.E.D. And it doesn’t matter if they are here legally or not."
These are the same mega-donors who are secretly pushing for a constitutional convention to rewrite our Constitution.
Jim Talent's letter is flat-out wrong about the Article V process, as he erroneously declares that the convention would "be called by the States." Article V of the Constitution expressly states, as anyone can easily confirm, that "Congress ... shall call a convention for proposing amendments." The States have no control over the process other than applying to Congress for it to act.
Article V of the Constitution authorizes only Congress to make the "call" for a constitutional convention, contrary to the misleading impression created by the Convention of States advocates. States may only apply for a Con Con, while Congress will call and control it. Big states would dominate any constitutional convention, and Missouri would not be entitled to "one state, one vote" because the U.S. Supreme Court has required proportional representation by population since 1964 everywhere except in the U.S. Senate. California and New York would run a Con Con, along with the media.
Although the letter attributed to Talent on HCR 5 (SCR 4) contains little actual substance, it does conclude with a demand for "a more limited federal government." Part of the secret agenda behind the push for a new Article V convention is a desire to reduce federal security along our border, in order to allow more illegal immigration. That would be less federal government as demanded by HCR 5 (SCR 4), but it would be very harmful to our Nation.
Congressmen take an oath of office that requires them to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." The hidden agenda behind trying the rewrite the Constitution, as funded by secret donors, should be defended against by rejecting HCR 5 (SCR 4).
Andrew Schlafly, J.D.
Phyllis Schlafly Eagles
Jump up↑ https://bipartisanpolicy.org/press-release/former-sen-jim-talent-joins-bpc-as-senior-fellow/
Jump up↑ https://bipartisanpolicy.org/search/immigration
Jump up↑ See, e.g., Talent's "AYE" votes for the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement (HR5684 - 2006) and the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (S1307 - 2005), and his "NAY" vote against HJ RES 57 to Disapprove Normal Trade Relations with China (1999).
Jump up↑ http://time.com/4737792/immigration-koch-brothers-citizenship-classes/
Jump up↑ https://www.conventionofstates.com/former_missouri
Jump up↑ https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html
Jump up↑ 5 U.S.C.S. § 3331.
MOEF Letter Concerning ConCon
Dec. 1, 2016
I am joined by Janet Engelbach in urging you not to introduce or support any resolution that triggers an Article V Convention of States (ConCon), including a Compact for a Balanced Budget.
Eagle Forum has always opposed a ConCon. Last year the late Justice Antonin Scalia called a ConCon a “horrible idea.” Our Republican national platform, with which Republicans vote an average of 89% of the time, resoundingly rejected an attempt to include a ConCon for a Balanced Budget this past summer in Cleveland. Anyone who sponsors or votes for a ConCon would be going against our own Republican national platform that was so successful in the recent election.
A ConCon would be disastrous for reasons that are too many to list here. For starters, an Article V convention would be called by Congress, not by the states, and an Article V convention cannot be controlled or limited once it is called. The ConCon could repeal the Electoral College and other essential safeguards for liberty that are in our Constitution. Without the Electoral College our nation would probably have not been able to elect a Republican president in the past quarter-century. Is that the future we want? Certainly not. A ConCon would be dominated by large states like California, which Hillary Clinton won by millions of votes. Do we want California to dictate our future? Nope.
A ConCon requires 2/3rds of the States to pass resolutions seeking a convention and 3/4 of the states to ratify any amendments. Although it might sound as if achieving 38 state concurrences is difficult, we particularly draw your attention to the three flaws in this theory:
(1) There is the possibility that once the convention is opened, the rules themselves, often quoted as a safeguard, could be amended to allow easy passage of amendments that could destroy our Constitution.
(2) Congress has the power to choose what method of ratification is used, and it is not guaranteed that authorization would be sought from each state legislature; indeed, there is precedent for an alternative and easier mode—a special state convention that circumvents the added hurdle of the legislatures. (In 1933, the 21st Amendment was ratified by state conventions.)
(3) The media pressure becomes so intense to ratify constitutional amendments that states could roll over without any resistance, as they did in ratifying the 17th Amendment often by unanimous vote despite how that amendment disenfranchised the very legislatures that passed it anyway.
A ConCon would include players from across the political spectrum and many fundamental enemies of the American system, of Capitalism, and of personal freedom, would be on hand -- backed by millions from liberals such as George Soros and Hollywood elites.
Rather than risking the U.S. Constitution to revision at a time when so few American citizens even understand our Constitutional liberties and unique structured system of government, it is far better to work to correct Constitutional transgressions without jeopardizing the entire framework. Remember, one of the top goals of the left in any Constitutional Convention is to revise (gut) the Second Amendment by adding just six little words, “when serving in the militia” to the amendment. Do you think the Leftist activists wouldn’t come out of the woodwork to effectively eliminate our Second amendment? Of course they would, and then our freedoms would be irretrievably lost.
In addition, the largest voting block within the Republican Party are the pro-life voters, and they oppose how a ConCon could insert a requirement of taxpayer-funded abortion into the Constitution. Mark Levin’s book, The Liberty Amendments, doesn’t even mention allowing a pro-life amendment. Pro-lifers are focused on the Supreme Court appointments and President-elect Trump may be able to appoint enough Justices to overturn Roe v. Wade. A ConCon would interfere with that and could make taxpayer-funded abortion a new constitutional right. Pro-lifers strongly oppose this.
Please don’t risk our miraculous U.S. Constitution by sponsoring or supporting any ConCon legislation, whether it is called an Article V Convention or a Compact.
Missouri Eagle Forum President
Missouri Eagle Legislative Director
Is Article V in Our Future?
by Phyllis Schlafly
August 28, 2013
Attacks on the U.S. Constitution are coming from all sides. The New York Times opened its op-ed page to several liberal professors of government: one calls our Constitution “imbecilic,” another claims it contains “archaic” and “evil provisions,” and a third urges us to “rewrite the Second Amendment.”
Out of exasperation with the flouting of the Constitution by Barack Obama and his acolytes, and the way Congress is letting them get by with these violations, several conservative authors and pundits are promoting the calling of a national convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. They believe a series of amendments can put our country on a wiser path.
The authority for such a procedure is Article V of our Constitution, so they are calling their plan of action an Article V convention. However, they are fooling themselves when they suggest that Article V creates a path to bypass Congress with a “convention of states.”
The only power the states have under Article V is the opportunity to submit an “application” (petition) humbly beseeching Congress to call a convention. Hundreds of such applications have been submitted over the years, with widely different purposes and wording, many applications were later rescinded, and some purport to make the application valid for only a particular amendment such as a federal balanced budget or congressional term limits.
Article V states that Congress “shall” call a convention on the application of two-thirds of state legislatures (34), but how will Congress count valid applications? We don’t know, and so far Congress has ignored them anyway.
If Congress ever decides to act, Article V gives Congress exclusive power to issue the “Call” for a convention to propose “amendments” (note the plural). The Call is the governing document which determines all the basic rules such as where and when a convention will be held, who is eligible to be a delegate (will current office-holders be eligible?), how delegates will be apportioned, how expenses will be paid, and who will be the chairman.
Article V also gives Congress the power to determine whether the three-fourths of the states required for ratification of amendments can ratify by the state legislature’s action or by state conventions.
The most important question to which there is no answer is how will convention delegates be apportioned? Will each state have one vote (no matter how many delegates it sends), which was the rule in the 1787 Philadelphia convention, or will the convention be apportioned according to population (like Congress or the Electoral College)?
Nothing in Article V gives the states any power to make this fundamental decision. If apportionment is by population, the big states will control the outcome.
Article V doesn’t give any power to the states to propose constitutional amendments, or to decide which amendments will be considered by the convention. Article V doesn’t give any power to the courts to correct what does or does not happen.
Now imagine Democratic and Republican conventions meeting in the same hall and trying to agree on constitutional changes. Imagine the gridlock in drafting a constitutional plank by caucuses led by Sarah Palin and Al Sharpton.
Everything else about how an Article V Convention would function, including its agenda, is anybody’s guess. Advocates of an Article V convention can hope and predict, but they cannot assure us that any of their plans will come true.
If we follow the model of the 1787 Convention, will the deliberations be secret? Are you kidding? Nothing is secret any more. What are the plans to deal with protesters: the gun-control lobby, the gay lobby, the abortion lobby, the green lobby, plus experienced protestors trained by Obama’s Organizing for Action, at what would surely be the biggest media event of the year, if not of the century.
There is no proof that the VIPs promoting an Article V convention have any first-hand knowledge of the politics or procedures of a contested national convention. Don’t they realize that the convention will set its own agenda and that states will have no sayso over which amendments are considered?
A recent example of how a convention chairman wielding the gavel can manipulate what happens is the way the 2012 Democratic National Convention chairman ruthlessly called the vote wrong when a delegate tried to add a reference to God in the party platform. The chairman got by with declaring the amendment passed even though we all saw on television that the “Noes” won the vote.
The whole process is a prescription for political chaos, controversy and confrontation. Alas, I don’t see any George Washingtons, James Madisons, Ben Franklins or Alexander Hamiltons around today who could do as good a job as the Founding Fathers, and I’m worried about the men who think they can.
For more information, please contact:
Jordan T. Henry
Director of Research, Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund
Jordan Henry Testimony
Dear Chairman and Distinguished Members of this Committee,
No one would dispute the fact that our U.S. Congress is failing the American people. We all want to see change take place. However, Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 14/ House Concurrent Resolution No. 10, which calls for an Article V Constitutional Convention, has a number of troubling implications that we would like you to be aware of.
First, a Constitutional Convention would be too risky a gamble with the Constitution in its present form. Phyllis Schlafly likened a Constitutional Convention to a game of Russian roulette because of the uncertain outcome and high stakes. The Constitution is arguably the best governing document in the history of the world, and it is also the best weapon that we have against government overreach. To risk it without an overwhelming number of safeguards would be foolish.
Unfortunately, a Constitutional Convention would not have many of the safeguards that proponents claim it would. For instance, a convention could not be limited to a single term limit amendment. Article V of the Constitution clearly states that Congress “shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments.” The plain language of the text states that plural amendments must be allowed to be proposed. However, that is one of few issues that is plainly settled by Article V. Other issues that are not mentioned in the Constitution and therefore cannot be guaranteed include: Will each state get one vote or will it be proportional? Who will pay for the convention? How will delegates be chosen? Will proceedings be open to the influence of the media or will deliberations be closed? There are simply too many unanswered questions to take such a huge risk.
Second, these unanswered questions will inevitably be given to Congress and the Supreme Court to decide. Under Article V, Congress is the entity that calls the convention, not the states. Therefore, Congress would have the power to make all of the important decisions setting up the convention. A study by the American Bar Association on this topic concluded that “Congress has discretion in interpreting Article V and in adopting implementing legislation. It cannot be gainsaid [denied] that Congress has the primary power of administering Article V.” If Congress was worried that SCR 14/HCR 10 would lead to a limitation of their power, they would do everything possible to control the convention. There is nothing in Article V that prevents them from doing so.
The Supreme Court would also be quick to support the crooked Congress in their grasp at power. According to the website of the Convention of States Project, a leading supporter of a Constitutional Convention, “The federal judiciary supports Congress and the White House in their ever-escalating attack upon the jurisdiction of the fifty states.” Clearly, the panel of nine unelected lawyers that we call the Supreme Court is not on the side of the people. Since the principle of judicial review gives the Supreme Court authority to determine questions of constitutional procedure, they will determine how an Article V Convention is conducted. The aforementioned study from the American Bar Association said “The Committee believes that judicial review of decisions made under Article V is desirable and feasible. We believe Congress should declare itself in favor of such review in any legislation implementing the convention process.” The federal judiciary is a part of the problem. Giving them the discretionary power to determine how our Constitution is amended will only make the problem worse.
To support an Article V Constitutional Convention is to underestimate the power of the grassroots to make real change. No one denies that it will be hard to rein in Congressional overreach. It is going to take the hard work of thousands of tireless patriots. However, I firmly believe that the voters can force Congress to listen to us. There is no silver bullet like a Constitutional Convention that can make everything easy for us, but we can persevere without placing our wonderful Constitution in jeopardy at the hands of Congress and the Supreme Court.
Jordan T. Henry
Director of Research, Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund
Rules, Joint Rules, Resolutions, and Ethics Committee
9:00 AM Senate Lounge, 3rd Floor
Sponsor: Chuck Basye
Special Committee on Government Oversight
12:00 PM House Hearing Room 7, Basement
Cheri Toalson Reisch
Protecting the Electoral College
From Phyllis Schlafly, May 2009:
The Electoral College Serves Us Well
The Electoral College is one of the provisions of our U.S. Constitution that the liberals hate the most. When Hillary Clinton was elected to the Senate, her first legislative proposal was to call for the abolition of the Electoral College.
The Electoral College is one of the legacies of the inspired genius of our Founding Fathers. It was part of the Great Compromise between the big states and the small states which transformed us from 13 rival colonies into a constitutional republic. This Great Compromise brought together the large and small by means of a national Congress, with the House based on population and the Senate based on state sovereignty.
The Electoral College is grounded in this same brilliant compromise: it allows all states, regardless of size, to be players in the process of electing our President. Its rationale and structure are the perfect mirror of the Great Compromise that made our Constitution possible: the combination of equal representation of states with representation based on population. Our Presidents are elected by a majority of votes in the Electoral College, with each state's vote weighted based on its population.
The Electoral College induces presidential candidates to gear their time, money and policies toward the whole country, not merely toward the half dozen most populous states. If we had a popular-vote process, the temptation would be irresistible for presidential candidates to offer the moon wrapped in federal dollars to the states where big-city machines can pile up extra millions of votes.
The Electoral College is the unique vehicle that gives us a President who achieves a majority in a functioning political process. It saves us from the fate of other nations that suffer from the complexities, uncertainties and agonies of coalition governments patched together when no candidate or party wins a popular-vote majority.
The Electoral College is particularly fortuitous in close elections because it saves us from the calamity of having to recount votes in many or even all 50 states. Remember the election of 2000, when the result was unknown for weeks while we waited for recounts in Florida. If victory had depended on the country's total popular vote, we would have suffered demands for recounts and legal challenges in many states — not only states that ended in a close vote, but also the states that carried big for one candidate, who could try to scrape up an additional few hundred votes.
Because of third parties, it is very difficult for a candidate ever to receive 50+% of the popular vote. We would nearly always be saddled with minority presidents without an adequate basis of support for leadership.
Remember, it is so easy to make credible charges of election fraud in almost every state.
Another advantage of our Electoral College is that, except as a last resort, it keeps the meddling fingers of Congress out of the election process. The Electoral College is the only function of our national government that is performed outside of Washington, D.C. The President is actually elected by electors chosen in their states according to their own state election laws, who meet and cast their ballots in their own state capitals. No Senator, Representative, or other federal official is permitted to be an elector in the Electoral College.
The Electoral College has served us well for more than two centuries, with repeated peaceful transfers of power, and there is every reason to believe it can continue to serve us for the next century. No one has proposed a better alternative.
Stealing the Presidential Election
A major attack has been launched on our Constitution by those who want to change our form of government by getting rid of the Electoral College without amending the Constitution in the proper way. Over the years, several amendments have been proposed to abolish or change the Electoral College, but they have gone nowhere, so now some politicians are trying to change our Constitution without complying with the amendment process. Their plan requires stealing votes on a massive scale.
This plot is called the Campaign for the National Popular Vote (NPV), and it apparently has a lot of money behind it. NPV is headed by three losers who were defeated in the 1980 Reagan landslide: John Anderson, Birch Bayh and John Buchanan.
The plan is to get states with at least 270 votes in the Electoral College to enact identical bills requiring their own electors to ignore the winner of their own state's presidential election and cast all their state's ballots for the candidate who the politicians believe received more popular votes nationwide than the other candidates. NPV would construct a fake majority by stealing votes away from some candidates and transferring them to another candidate.
What could be more ridiculous and un-American than to force electors to vote against the votes cast by their own constituents! Yet NPV wants to require a state like Louisiana to cast its votes for the candidate who won in other states such as New York.
The NPV campaign lets people believe that their system will elect Presidents who win the majority of the popular vote, but that is absolutely false. The NPV plan would elect the candidate who achieved only a plurality of the popular vote. Because of third parties, we've had many elections (including three of the last five) when no presidential candidate received a popular-vote majority. Abraham Lincoln won less than 40% of the popular vote and only his Electoral College majority elected him President.
The elimination of the Electoral College would overnight make irrelevant the votes of Americans in about 25 states because candidates would zero in on piling up votes in large-population states. Big-city machines would take over, and candidates from California or New York would enjoy a built-in advantage.
People who pretend that the Electoral College system is undemocratic are not only ignorant of the history and purposes of the U.S. Constitution, but they probably don't even understand baseball — the Great American Game. Basing the election on a plurality of the popular vote while ignoring the states would be like the New York Yankees claiming they won the 1960 World Series because they outscored the Pirates in runs 55-27 and in hits 91-60. Yet, the Pirates fairly won that World Series, 4 games to 3, and no one challenges their victory.
The NPV slogan "Every Vote Equal" is stunningly dishonest because the NPV proposal is based on legalizing vote-stealing and on changing the rules of presidential elections by a compact of as few as 11 states instead of the 38 states needed to amend the Constitution.
Anderson, Bayh, Buchanan and their associates in the Campaign for the National Popular Vote know they can't change the Electoral College honestly by passing a constitutional amendment. Their devious plan to bypass the U.S. Constitution must be defeated. Their slogan that NPV will "make sure every vote counts in presidential elections," and their implication that NPV will elect Presidents who get the majority of the popular vote (whereas it would be only a plurality), must be exposed as dishonest.
NPV has already been passed by Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii and Washington State. It's time to call a halt to this constitutional mischief.
November 9, 2012
Dear American Patriots:
We can’t put a pretty face on this one! The election was clearly a devastating loss for our country, our economy, and for all of the values that we hold dear. Many of us are still reeling from it, as we felt that it was a close but sure win for Romney and otherRepublicans in Missouri and across the country Frankly, I’m not sure that our country will ever recover from this loss. But clearly, our forefathers paid too greata price not to continue to fight for the soul of America . We must not allow Barack Obama and the corrupt group around him to break our spirit. Instead we must continue to be committed warriors, and fight the good fight to take our country back.
How did this happen? First, our demographics have changed much more than we had all realized. It is a country now that is much less white, much less married, and certainly much less traditional. Obama’s worldview appeals to this population, and as Rush Limbaugh has said, for many, Santa Claus is just too hard to resist.. Another explanation is that almost 3 million Republicans decided not to vote! Obviously the base was notfired up…..because of a passive, safe campaign?? Also voter fraud has been a big problem and continues to be great cause for concern.
Thankfully, there are a few positive signs: We still have a majority in the House of Representatives, there are now 29 Republican governors, and still half the country is in our camp. But there have been loud calls for a moderation of the Republican message, even by so-called conservatives. Incredibly, House Speaker John Boehner is now capitulating on repealing ObamaCare, and talks about working on an amnesty policy. We have a divided party, one problem the democrats do not experience. Dear patriots, we cannot compromise on the conservative principles upon which the Republican party has always stood! Why have two parties, if this is the wave of the future? No, we must continue to work on reclaiming the sound principles that have made us the greatest country in the world. And in the next few months in the lame duck session, we must hold the House of Representatives accountable to refuse more spending and more taxes.
We must not despair, dear patriots! Let us continue to fight the good fight to take ourcountry back. Most of all, continue to pray for your country, as prayer is needed more than ever in these dark times.Thank you, dear patriots, for all that you’ve done to help take your country back, and may God have mercy on the United States of America!
President, Missouri Eagle Forum
HEALTH CARE FREEDOM IS UNDER ASSAULT IN MISSOURI
In the upcoming Legislative Session, Senator Jane Cunningham plans to submit legislation which would place the language of Proposition C or The Health Care Freedom Act into the Missouri Constitution. Last year 71% of Missouri voters voted for Proposition C, which prevents the federal government from mandating citizens to purchase health insurance. Representative Tim Jones will present legislation in the House.
This action has been necessitated because of Governor Nixon’s recent attempt by Executive Order to appropriate 21 million dollars to implement Health Insurance Exchanges (essentially Obamacare) without approval from the legislature. Because of the effective intervention of Senator Jane Cunningham , Senator Jim Lembke, and several other senators, this action was thwarted.
In her recent press release, Senator Cunningham said, “This action to implement a federal health care exchange flies in the face of the 71 percent of voters who overwhelmingly said “yes” to Proposition C, an initiative designed to prevent the federal government from requiring citizens to purchase health insurance, and for punishing those who don’t purchase a prescribed product……furthermore I’m disappointed to learn that the Governor and his administration were looking to implement the health care exchange without legislative knowledge or approval. Because of this, I plan on putting in legislation this upcoming session which would place the language of Proposition C or the Health Care Freedom Act into the Missouri State Constitution.”
Missourians need to strongly urge their state senators and representatives to support this legislation in the upcoming session. We the people have already taken our stand on Obamacare and we WILL be heard again!
Capitol Legislative Academy Held in Jefferson City
Missouri Eagle Forum held it's 8th annual Capitol Legislative Academy at the State Capitol in Jefferson CityJanuary 4th. A record number of attendees, 123 adults and students, came from all over the state. One school in Hillsboro, Missouri sent 20 students. We were thrilled that Donna Turk, our new Kansas City Chapter President, was able to attend. The event was held in conjunction with Missouri Family Network and Concerned Women for America in Missouri. There was excellent teaching in the morning on successfully lobbying your legislator about your particular issue. Two mock hearings were held in the afternoon. A number of legislators were able to visit and speak to us during the day. In conclusion, it was another very successful Academy!
It's been very exciting to see Missouri "put on the map" by the passage of Proposition C. As most of you know, it's been one of the top news stories in the nation. Missouri is now leading the nation in the rejection of Obamacare, and we're the example for many other states who will follow. Please thank Senator Jane Cunningham for initiating the Health Care Freedom Act bill, for her hard work in getting it passed in the Senate and House in May, and for all that she did that led to its passage as Proposition C August 3rd. Also, please thankSenator Jim Lembke, Representative Tim Jones and Representative Brian Nieves for their co-sponsorship of the bill in the senate and house, and for all their dedication and hard work as well. I'd also like to thank Bev Ehlen of Concerned Women of America, Annette Read of I Heard the People Say, Kerry Messer ofMissouri Family Network, and Cindy McGhee of Show Me Patriots. Also Patrick Tuohey, Treasurer ofMissourians for Health Care Freedom, was instrumental in the process as well. These leaders worked tirelessly day after day to ensure that Missourians would be protected from outrageous mandates coming from Washington DC. And thank you dear patriots from St Louis and all across Missouri who voted, worked at the polls, called and sent emails, used yard signs and gave financially. Your hard work has paid off. Even though there will be hurdles to overcome, our message to Washington by a 71% majority was loud and clear: KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MISSOURI !
Our August 3rd victory was a great send-off as we move toward the elections November 2nd! We have a lot for which to be thankful, and I'm very optomistic about November. The people have spoken and drawn a line in the sand! So look out Washington!! Thank you again, patriotic friends, for all you've done to help take our country back to the Constitutional principles upon which it was founded.
President, Missouri Eagle Forum
Groups Tag Team Against Agriculture
By Chris Fennewald, Editor, MFB Publications
The radical group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) wants America to be vegan and has a powerful partner in its mission, according to David Martosko, Director of Research for the non-profit Center for Consumer Freedom. He says PETA and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) are playing a tag match in efforts to stop livestock production.
Martosko spoke to Missouri Farm Bureau members in Washington, D.C., during the MFB legislative trip in March. He is responsible for the Web site humanewatch.org which has exposed HSUS’s deceptive fund raising practices and its connections with PETA.
According to Martosko, the primary job of PETA today is to make the HSUS seem reasonable by comparison. "PETA will boycott, picket or hassle the president of a company. Then, three days later, HSUS makes a phone call saying work with us, we are kinder and gentler. Usually, it works, but HSUS is not an animal welfare group, it is an animal rights group," he says.
What is the difference? Plenty. Martosko told Farm Bureau members the animal rights position is that you have no right to eat a steak, milk a cow or drink the milk, use lab rats to cure cancer, hunt, fish or enslave an animal as a pet.
He says 99 percent of Americans are animal welfare proponents that agree using animals for food, clothing and research is necessary as long as animals are treated humanely.
Those same Americans who believe in animal welfare donate to HSUS believing the group maintains animal shelters.
A recent poll shows people are misled. Seventy-one percent of Americans questioned in the poll wrongly believe the HSUS is an "umbrella group" for America’s local humane societies.
Sixty-three percent incorrectly think their local "humane society" is affiliated with HSUS. And, 59 percent falsely believe HSUS "contributes most of its money" to local organizations that care for cats and dogs.
The poll released in March sampled the opinions of 1,008 Americans and was commissioned by the Center for Consumer Freedom.
"These numbers indicate Americans don’t really know what the Humane Society of the United States is all about," said Martosko. "HSUS intentionally uses those sad dogs and cats in its TV infomercials as props in an animal rights fund raising shell game. Meanwhile, thousands of American pet shelters are underfunded and struggling."
According to the federal income tax return filed by HSUS for the tax year 2008, less than one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the organization’s budget consisted of grants to hands-on pet shelters. HSUS does not run a single shelter for dogs or cats anywhere, and it is not affiliated with any local "humane society" organizations.
The donated funds pay for a lobbying machine that attacks animal agriculture and promotes a vegan lifestyle.
HSUS has come to Missouri circulating an initiative petition to place controls on dog breeders. They want the issue on the November ballot. HSUS is using the term "puppy mill" which Martosko describes as a pejorative similar to the term "factory farm." Both are inaccurate terms that project a negative perception. In fact, the proposed ballot language has been challenged in court.
"According to HSUS, if you have more than 50 cows, you are a factory farm," says Martosko. "You may not think you run a puppy mill, but if you have more than 10 animals that produce litters, HSUS says you operate a puppy mill.
"I’ve seen large pet breeding operations that are wonderfully operated and I’ve seen small ones that are horrible. Size is not a factor, it is the conditions that matter."
A real solution is providing more funding to the Missouri Department of Agriculture to hire inspectors that check licensed dog breeders and shut down unlicensed breeders. Laws to enforce are already in place. HSUS’s ballot initiative does nothing to address enforcement problems.
Martosko and other opponents of the measure agree the ballot initiative is less about dogs for HSUS and more about raising money.
"If they can limit the number of animals a pet breeder can breed, they can limit the number of registered Holsteins someone can breed or the number of chickens someone can hatch in a hatchery," says Martosko.
Expect less production and higher food prices if that happens. Of course, that puts low-income families on a vegan diet, which is just fine with these animal rights groups.
November 5, 2010
What an historical landslide! We the people have spoken VERY loudly and clearly in Missouri and throughout the nation. With 60 new Republican seats in the House, this was the largest one party switch since 1932. There were significant gains in the Senate and in Governors’ seats throughout the nation as well. In Missouri there were also significant gains in the state Senate and House. Republicans are now controlling 106 House seats to the Democrats’ 57 – 163 seats total. This is after approximately half a century of being in the minority and entering the election with 82 seats. The GOP also picked up 3 additional seats in the state Senate.
This couldn’t have been a stronger repudiation against the socialist agenda of President Obama as he spends us into bankruptcy, raises taxes, 9% and rising jobless rate, forcing Obamacare on us, downgrading our national security and borders, humiliating the US around the world, and trashing our Constitution. He has debased the presidency as no other former US president has. Hopefully his radical agenda will now be blocked. But sadly he will always be determined: Yesterday in his first press conference in 300 days, it was clear in his speech that either he cannot or will not hear the American people, and is off to India with 3,000 people at a cost of approximately 200 million dollars a day! So much for listening and changing!
As Marco Rubio said so aptly the other night, the American people are giving Republicans a second chance. It is so imperative that we keep these new legislators’ feet to the fire - accountable to truly cutting the spending, cutting taxes, repealing Obamacare, treating our enemies like enemies, and our friends like friends, and actually following the Constitution.
Missouri Eagle Forum congratulates Senator-elect Roy Blunt, Congressman Todd Akin, Vicky Hartzler, Sam Graves, Billy Long, Jo Ann Emerson, and Congressman Blaine Leutkemeyer. We commend Robyn Hamlin from the 1st District and Jacob Turk from the 5th District for fighting a long and brave fight! And we also congratulate all the Missouri state senators and representatives who won! I’m sorry I don’t have the space to list all their names. We all hope the very best for Ed Martin as he investigates these very mysterious last minute “midnight voters,” from 7 city and county precincts. Also being investigated is a suspicious security firm hired for one of the polling sites and connected to the Carnahans. Then there is the problem of the supposed computer glitches November 2nd reported by Secretary of State Robin Carnahan. We applaud for Ed for getting to the bottom of it! Needless to say, honest elections are mandatory!
Thank you dear patriots for all you’ve done to help take our country back. I know that many of you have worked hard day after day for months to bring about this wonderful victory! We have a lot to celebrate!
November 2nd is YOUR victory!
President, Missouri Eagle Forum
EAGLE FORUM’S NATIONAL LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE
Eagle Forum held it’s 40th National Leadership Conference in Arlington, Virginia September 16th to 18th. Approximately 250 leaders from 50 states were in attendance. Highlights of the weekend were addresses from Virgina Attorney General Ken Cuchinelli, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, and of course Eagle Forum founder and president Phyllis Schlafly.
There were many informative and stimulating talks during the weekend such as:
Eagle Forum’s International Issues Chairman Kathie Adams addressed the dangers of UN Agenda 21 – a comprehensive UN plan initiated in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, and adopted by Bill Clinton through an Executive Order in 1993. Its goal is to bring about a Socialist government, managed by unelected, appointed planning commissioners and other NGO’s. The UN NGO called ICLEI or International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives is the arm of the UN that is promoting Agenda 21 and the overhaul of local governments. There are more than 600 cities and counties that are members of ICLEI – which means that those cities and counties are indirectly under the control of the UN. There are 3 themes that are central to UN Agenda 21: Equity, Economy, and Environment. The goal of Equity is to transform equal justice into social justice. Social justice is the redistribution of wealth, without property rights because private ownership negates equality. The goal for theEconomy is to change it from a free enterprise system to a public-private-partnership system where government and private corporations partner up. This is fascism – private ownership, but controlled by the government.Environment refers to giving plants and animals more and at least equal rights with humans.
Agenda 21 is currently working on several specific goals within our society:
The establishment of an international energy grid, using Smart Meters, Smart Grids, and Smart Growth. The grid will be controlled from a central location Agenda 21 is seeking to transform schools and universities into indoctrination centers, using green fear tactics and false information to influence students into supporting environmental causes.
Regional planning is an important goal of Agenda 21: The idea is to change our cities into crowded “sustainable development communities” with stack em and pack em housing and limited parking. With this setup – it’s easier to keep track of people.
Agenda 21 seeks to implement a limited use of cars. Electric Smart cars – silly, unsafe, and unreliable – is the goal. Walking, biking, using buses, or short rail will be pushed. Without the standard car, again it’s a lot easier to keep track of people.
Agenda 21 wishes to destroy the Judeo-Christian foundation of our nation, and replace it with secular humanism and a new-age, earth-worshipping religion. The reason is that a moral, religious people are too hard to control, and they have no need of an overreaching federal government.
Agenda 21 supports the Wildland’s Project – a product of Earth First. The Wildland’s project seeks to re-wild 50% of our nation and turn it into pre-civilized times where animals will have free reign, and humans will be confined to sustainable communities or little islands. To bring this about, roadways will not be maintained, or destroyed, dams will be blown up, fires will be allowed to burn and destroy millions of acres of land. Finally, people will have to leave the rural areas and live in cities.
In conclusion, Agenda 21 seeks to control every aspect of our lives, but to do it in a way that people expect, and are grateful for it. Congress needs to hold hearings on this matter, and call upon people who are experts on the issue. Please call your congressman with your concerns!