Many well intentioned Patriots and Christians alike are calling for an Article V Constitutional Convention, and so are their Liberal Socialist counterparts. Arguments abound that the States can limit the Convention to very narrow topics. Hal Rounds disproves those arguments and provides the historical context and Constitutional analysis to back it up. He shows that the current Constitution allows for all the things argued for and that Article V was an escape hatch in case the Great Experiment failed and a completely new form of government was needed. We are dangerously close to a Con-Con and the future of our Constitution, our Country, our Freedoms and our very lives depends on making sure that doesn't happen. Contact your State Legislators today and tell them NO to an Article V Convention.
The Supreme Court – the Confederate Emblem
As pointed out last week, the Supreme Court used the end of this session to fundamentally transform several characteristics of American society. One of those decisions combined with an inexcusable and tragic slaughter of innocent worshippers at a black church to fuel an outburst of counter-hatred as demonic as that of the church shooting itself.
The Supreme Court decision decreed that Texas can choose which messages private persons can put on their custom license plates. The law has always – ‘til now – forbid the government from censoring speech when they offer a forum for public use. For example, the government of a town cannot offer a public park for a “pro-choice” rally, and forbid a “pro-life” rally. The park is a public forum, any group can use it. The space on license plates once identified only things the state wanted – the slogan and name of the state, and the number identifying the vehicle. That changed when “vanity” plates were invented, and motorists got to show off names, slogans, and the like. These raised money for the state, and no one made the mistake of taking the statements as policies favored by the state. Then institutions and groups got to design things they favored, like “I’d rather be golfing” or “Choose Life.” Again, no one took these to be anything other than the expression of the driver on a neutral platform.
That is, until someone asked Texas to add the Confederate cross to the list of available symbols. Other states – like Tennessee – allow this symbol of interest in the Civil War and pride of ancestors to be expressed by drivers willing to pay for the custom design. But officials in Texas, perhaps indoctrinated in the anti-Confederate mythology that is so prevalent today, refused to add this symbol to all those previously approved. The argument over this rejection is what went to the Supreme Court. And, in a hard turn to the left, the Supremes decided that these symbols are expressions of state policy, so the state can choose which it permits.
This biased logic could be extended to military dog tags and gravestones in military cemeteries, where the faith of the soldier is shown. The Star of David on a gravestone, by this logic, tells the world that the government assigned the deceased to be Jewish. That’s obviously wrong – and so is the license plate argument. The faith of the soldier is as personal as his name on those perpetual markers. Offering these on his grave marker is simply one of the compensations for his service the soldier has earned.
Almost immediately after this judicial error, a hate-motivated idiot killed black worshippers, and his act was associated with the Confederate flag. Had the killer used the Scales of Justice image of the Tennessee Bar Association as his symbol, would the media have jumped to the attack demanding that all bar association memorials and names be removed from everywhere? No, they would know that the killer was simply abusing an honored image. But hatred for Confederates is in style these days, so any excuse is fair game to attack the images of the Confederacy.
The attack has rapidly returned to the favorite demands of anti-Confederate hate groups – remove memorials honoring Confederates, and remove names associated with Confederate people and sacrifices from buildings and facilities. These demands are made to hide the fact that the Confederates being remembered were simple citizens who rose to oppose an invading force, who fought so valiantly and effectively that they made military history, and who finally returned home after defeat and rebuilt communities and states despite prolonged punishment by those who conquered them.
The campaign to destroy all knowledge of the Confederacy is hauntingly like the actions of ISIS in their war to destroy all the ancient memorials and artifacts that tell us of past civilizations. ISIS is driven by a demonic hatred against all civilizations that did not – and those that do not - worship as they do. The world suffers loss of our heritage with each memorial they destroy. The same is true of the destruction inflicted by the Confederate-haters in their crusade of ignorance.