Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report


Bible Questions

Internet Articles (2012)
Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)

Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Order Book






Most Americans dismiss out of hand the idea that its State leaders
could arbitrarily call for a Convention of the States to initiate a
Constitutional Convention to abolish or radically alter the Consti-
tution of the United States. Most Americans don't realize a Con-Con
was successfully achieved once, and efforts were initiated during
both the Carter and Clinton years to do it again. Had the Council of
State governors succeeded in 1994, there would be no Bill of Rights
attached to what would now appear more like the UN Declaration on
Human Rights than what we know as the Constitution of the United
States. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (minus
gun rights) would now replace the Bill of Rights...even though it pretty
much does anyway since the federal courts have been coupling the
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with the Bill of Rights since 1947.

In 1994 Utah Governor Michael Leavitt—a purported pro-gun rights Republican was elected to head the Council of State Governments. On Dec. 22 of that year, Leavitt circulated a resolution to the governors of the other 49 States calling for a Conference of the States for the purpose of "restoring balance in the federal system." Leavitt's proposition was tantalizingly appealing to Americans who wanted to rein-in, and reduce the size of, the federal government. Leavitt secured the backing of important "conservatives" like Wisconsin governor Tommy G. Thompson, North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms, and Colorado Senator Hank Brown.

Although such Resolutions sound like a patriotic chime of the people taking back their government, the reality is a Constitutional Convention, or a Con-Con, is called only when the States are resolved to change or abolish the Constitution. The first Constitutional Convention was convened on May 24, 1787 specifically to increase the power of the central government of the United States, and to empower the Chief Executive. The Convention resulted from several failed attempts on the part of the central government to amend the Articles of Confederation which were flatly rejected by the States.

Under the Articles of Confederation, the central government of the United States was the subservient agent of the States. The federal government had no taxing power, nor did it possess any political authority over the States. The central government submitted its budget to the States, and based on population apportionment, the States taxed their citizens appropriately and paid the bill.

The President's role was not that of advocate for the people because the People did not elect him. He was elected by the States and served as their representative to the powers of Europe.

Had the central government not discovered, during the New Deal and Great Society years that they could amend the Constitution with an eraser, the attempt to institute another Constitutional Convention in 1980 when Jimmy Carter's White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler authored an article in Foreign Affairs magazine in which he advocated that America alter or simply abolish the Constitution because it gets in the way of governing. Cutler proposed changing the Constitution to allow the President select his cabinet from the members of Congress or the Senate while letting them to serve dual roles as they do in England, which is unconstitutional here. The Left attempted several times during the Reagan and Bush-41 years to instigate a Con-Con for the specific purpose of changing our form of government to resemble England's. They failed due in large part to the John Birch Society which fought the effort. And, Leavitt failed in 1995.

Every attempt to initiate a Con-Con in the United States has been financed by men who favor a more tyrannical form of government—one which makes its citizens the human chattel of the government. That is a fact regardless of the conservative face the promoters of a Con-Con put on it. Remember this: Democratic and/or Republican politicians who let the rich fill their campaign war chests are beholden to those benefactors who expect their campaign debts to be paid in quid pro quos. When the princes of industry and barons of banking and business force honest conservatives to "front" for their Utopian agendas against their will, those Congressmen and Senators usually announce shortly after they sell out their constituents for 30 pieces of silver, that they are retiring.

Men with black souls are determined to recast the United States into a clone of the more obedient European States in order to achieve world government—complete with a fluid global economy and, of course, a benign world religion that offends no one but blames Christianity for offending everyone. Today, the left appears convinced they can succeed by working on the more pliable minds of Tea Party advocates, believing that with the right patriotic rhetoric they can convince Tea Party advocates to achieve what they have failed to do over the past 30 years—assemble of Conference of the States, call a Constitutional Convention and convert the Constitution of the United States into a document that provides only "conditional rights" like the UN Declaration on Human Rights.

Don't fall for the rhetoric of the wolves in sheep's clothing. Democrat or Republican, if they claim to be advocating for your rights they mean to abrogate those rights and steal from you, your inherent liberties under the Bill of Rights. Don't listen to them. Fire them.




Just Say No
Copyright 2009 Jon Christian Ryter.
All rights reserved