Everything I find supports this theory. Examine the video of Mark Levin at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) meeting in Washington, D.C. on December 4, 2014. Sponsored by the Convention of States (COS) Project.
See what he says at 9:37 - again at 10:14
"Less than 70 of you in the same room. Two from each state"
He is really trying to make it confusing so I've paraphrased.
Then at 29:30 to 30:30 he
describes many more people involved related to squelching
fears of a runaway convention.
He is basically saying two
different things to two different parts of the audience about
the same aspect of Article V, the security of it relating to
constitutional intent. Those afraid of Article V are
afraid of it because they do not believe that existing
government will assure that all amendments have constitutional
Since this page was authored,
new developments confirm the assertion that globalists are
indeed nearly ready to begin the hijacking process of Article
CONSTITUTIONAL INTENT APPEARS TO
BE SOMETHING AMERICANS ARE AFRAID TO ADDRESS. WHY?
It is widespread. It's
like Americans can only consider some authority or certified
icon capable of competently defining constitutional intent. THIS is
absurd when the 9th
Amendment basically says only the people can define what is
not written, AND, that implies that the people can expand the
intent of what IS written.
During the height of OWS, I was
on their forum and people were trying to say I was working
with/for ALEC. To prove them wrong, I created an online
petition to get ALEC accountable to constitutional
intent. Covert agents at OWS working with admin worked
together and misrepresented me to sabotage my efforts.
I had done quite a bit of
research to try and connect ALEC with COS, which seems a lot
more on the level of the people. I could not connect
them. However, neither ALEC of COS would respond to my
inquiries about the concept of preparatory amendment to assure
all amendments have constitutional intent. Since then I've
made another to both ALEC and COS.
Both petitions died because of
covet cognitive infiltrators sabotaging my efforts.
However, I have learned quite a bit from the effort.
In recent web forums (1/16) I
learned of a Council Of Foreign Relations (CFR) member that
supported Convention of States. Randy E. Barnett.
I sent certified
mail to him asking about constitutional intent.
The post office failed to see the return receipt delivered to me, so this is the proof of delivery. Also, it shows a degree of unaccountability in the USPS which is disturbing.
The above provides the addressee
and address as well as the serial/tracking number which can be
found to be the same as the screen shot below in the
address bar from the USPS tracking page.
In an effort to get the return
receipt card I paid for, I asked the postal inspector to look
into the matter.
"and we MUST provide the level
of service you expect and deserve."
I've not been able to discover
how that is assured.
I learned something about COS and Michael Farris related to the Sibley lawsuit. http://www.foavc.org/reference/file67.pdf http://www.foavc.org/reference/file70.pdf http://www.foavc.org/reference/file71.pdf http://www.foavc.org/reference/file73.pdf http://www.foavc.org/reference/file74.pdf http://www.foavc.org/reference/file75.pdf
ďI didnít know this suit was filed, but itís without merit and itís really not helpful to the Article V movement,Ē
said Michael Farris, co-founder
of the Convention of States, a group that believes states
should initiate a convention to propose limits on federal
Without merit! His statement fit's perfectly into my
theory of conspiracy to use Koch generated support in state
legislations to hijack a convention. They don't want a
convention of states of states on states terms, they want it
on their terms with their carefully lobbied delegates of the
last 25 years. Sibley will be a historical hero for the
constitution if such exists and it prevails.
The Lawful and Peaceful Revolution
Back To Algoxy.com