Earlier this week, 20-year-old Duante Wright, an African-American, was shot and killed by a police officer in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. As has unfortunately become commonplace in America, the black community rioted and looted throughout the Minneapolis area in response. As of this writing, multiple arrests have been made as looting continues.
Open lawlessness is disturbing on many levels. Leaving aside the fact that Duante Wright was apparently accidentally shot—due to the fact that he, with outstanding warrants, was resisting arrest while struggling with the police officer—succeeding events demonstrate that we now have “mob rule” in the United States.
City manager of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Curt Bagoney, tried to reason with the mob. In an open press conference he suggested that the woman police officer, Kim Potter, who shot Duante Wright, “deserves due process.” That would be a fair hearing.
But we live in a planned chaotic-socialistic society where our political authorities have empowered and enabled minority mobs to hold law-abiding citizens hostage by unrestrained violence. Bagoney’s judicious words cannot be allowed. We must have Kim Potter’s head on a platter—and now.
Curt Bagoney lost his job, as the City Council terminated his services and salary. His firing portends the end of America.
According to the Star Tribune, a Twin Cities paper, at least one city council member voted to oust Bagoney from the job he’s held since 2006 not because he had done a bad job, or because he’d done anything wrong, but “because she feared for her property and retaliation by protestors if she had voted to keep him.” Council Member Kris Lawrence-Anderson said, “I didn’t want repercussions at a personal level.”
The situation is so hopeless that, even though police officer Kim Potter resigned her position, Brooklyn Center Police Chief Tim Gannon, who also called for “due process,” has been forced by mobsters to step down.
Thugs rule in Minnesota. The political powers-that-be at higher levels apparently want it this way. This is why City Councils, Mayors, and local Police Departments, cannot seem to stop it.
Due Process of Law, guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, simply means that the government promises legal and judicial fair play with its citizens. Normally, “due process” is divided into procedural and substantive. It is the former that is under consideration here.
Procedural “due process” refers to legal procedures are required to be followed in state proceedings. It includes opportunity for an open hearing, confrontation of cross-examination, and availability of counsel. This is why our legal system provides, at taxpayer expense, legal counsel for those who cannot afford it.
This was not an invention by our Founders. It is part of the principles laid out in the Bible. For example, one of the commands: “Thou shalt not commit murder” (Ex. 20:13) is fairly straightforward. Punishment for this crime is the death penalty (Ex. 21:12).
But what about the case of “manslaughter?” According to Deuteronomy 19:2-4 there were six cities of refuge to which a person who had committed manslaughter might flee in order to have a fair trial. If the accused was found innocent of “murder” then the option would be to remain in that city of refuge until the death of the High Priest. What is this? Due Process.
Even a trial itself, in the Mosaic Code, was governed by due process. Fairness. The procedures required more than one witness (Num. 35:30) in order to convict a person of a crime. One witness alone was insufficient (Deut. 17:6). This is procedural due process.
The extreme importance of “due process” cannot be overstated. One of the solid underpinnings of our entire nation and even western culture is fairness in dealing with the accused.
This is why the Constitution binds the government itself, and requires that it must follow what might be called “duly-elected laws” when it seeks to restrict freedoms and liberty. It is, as billofrights.org writes, “a blend of rights, customs, procedures, and legal traditions that have evolved over centuries alongside our modern understanding of the requirements of the concept of ‘justice.’”
This keystone of society is in danger of disappearing. America is on the cusp of losing this cornerstone of liberty. And if the cornerstones go, so does our liberty.
(1) Biblical View of Wicked Political Rulers. Some wonder why Christians should be concerned with the deterioration of our political process; and how this affects the church. Examination is made of biblical passages that demonstrate Christians should be mindful of the structure of our government, and who is leading it, and what are their principles?
(2) GUEST: Karla Wallace, Superintendent of Wichita Christian Schools. Karla and Bill discuss the legacy of Harry Patterson, the great Christian leader in our community, whose influence extended to all of north Texas as well as the nation. Emphasis is also placed upon the value of Christian education–one of Patterson’s passions.
American Liberty with Bill Lockwood is about the culture of America — not simply about politics. Bill Lockwood is a preacher, teacher, writer, and radio host with a weekly program based in West Texas.
America is in turmoil. It may be playing out on a “political” field, but it goes much deeper than that. It reaches down into the patterns of beliefs, values, ideas, and concepts upon which our culture is built. It is western culture, built upon a God-centered worldview, that is under assault. Political wars have religious roots.
Consider the biblical view of man. What is it that gives man value? Reaching further, what worldview encompasses principles which give value to humankind? The answer: only one basic understanding of the world recognizes that man has any intrinsic value—the biblical worldview.
Creation of Man
The creation of man is set forth in Genesis 1:26-27 in wherein God said, “Let us make man in our image and after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, …And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created He him, male and female he created them.”
Only man is said to be “created in God’s image and after His likeness.” The same is repeated in Genesis 5:1,3 as well as in 9:6. The latter specifically demonstrates that “the image and likeness of God” is not shared by the animal creation (see 9:3 where animals are for man’s consumption) whereas the taking of human life is that which merits the charge of “murder.”
Genesis 5:1,3 clearly echoes 1:26-27 and evinces the fact that “the image and likeness of God” continues even after man’s sin in the garden. New Testament passages such as Jas. 3:9 show that value is attached to man due to this “likeness.”
“The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord, searching all the inward parts …” (Prov. 20:27). Professor Plumptre, educated at Oxford a century ago, remarked of this verse: “the higher life, above that which he has in common with lower animals, coming to him direct from God.” Then he adds, “Such a life, with all its powers of insight, consciousness, reflection, is as a lamp which God has lighted, throwing its rays into the darkest recesses of the heart.”
What is the Image and Likeness of God?
The “image of God” is a distinction that sets humanity apart from the animate creation. We have but to ask, what does the Bible teach about man that is not taught about animals? Since man shares a biological make-up like that of animals, as well as the animation of the body, the single factor which sets man apart is the fact that man has an eternal spirit within him that is answerable to God (see 1 Thess. 5:23; Ecc. 12:7). What does this entail?
First, man is a rational being. This is not to argue that all of us act rationally at all times, but it is to say that we have the capacity to weigh matters and make informed decisions about them. Man has the ability to think, the power of problem-solving, the power to frame hypotheses, gather materials, gain insights into reality, test explanations, and to determine whether or not the test worked or did not work. As Professor Plumptre put it, only man has powers of insight and reflection.
Second, man is a moral being. Once again, this is not to say that we all act morally upright at all times, but only humankind has the capacity of “moral sensitivity.” Even evolutionist of yesteryear, G.G. Simpson stated, that unlike the rest of the animal creation, “Man is a moral animal.” Only man feels obligated to to obey moral principles. Only man distinguishes between what IS, and what OUGHT TO BE. All men have a sense of duty, and the sense of obligation to this duty regardless of personal safety.
Third, man has free will. When options are laid out before a person, only man has the ability to weigh these options for action and move on them—sometimes to the detriment of his own personal safety. It is solely from this biblical basis that our entire culture is predicated upon the proposition that “all men are created equal.”
These are the qualities which Solomon in Proverbs called “a candle of the Lord.”
Worldviews that Deny the Value of Man
I mentioned above that political wars have religious roots. Take paganism, both ancient and modern. Paganism begins with a denial that all men are created equal. Kenneth Matthews authored the two volumes on Genesis for The New American Commentary series. Reflecting upon ancient pagan beliefs, Matthews had this to say:
In the ancient Near East it was widely believed that kings represented the patron deities of their nations or city-states. Among the Mesopotamians and Canaanites, royal figures were considered ‘sons’ adopted by the gods to function as vice-regents and intermediaries between deity and society. Egyptian society recognized pharaoh as divine who was Horus in life and Osiris in death. Some royal stelae describe the king as the ‘image’ of God.
Some are born to rule. They have the “image of God.” Others are born to serve. Not much different from socialism. If we but allow the elite ruling class to organize and manage the rest of us, all will be well. This is the “gospel of socialism.”
How about the “Green Gospel” of Environmentalism? The grandfather of the modern environmental movement is former Vice-President Al Gore. His magnum opus, Earth in the Balance, specifically attacked the Genesis passages mentioned above.
“…major scientific discoveries have often undermined the Church’s tendency to exaggerate our uniqueness as a species and defend our separation from the rest of nature.” “It is my own belief that the image of God can be seen in every corner of creation, even in us, but only faintly.”
I believe that the image of the Creator which sometimes seems so faint in the tiny corner of creation each of us beholds, is nonetheless present in its entirety—and present in us as well. If we are made in the image of God, perhaps it is the myriad slight strands from the earth’s web of life—woven so distinctly in our essence … By experiencing nature in its fullest … with our senses and with our spiritual imagination, we can glimpse, bright shining as the sun, an infinite image of God.
To kick-off the modern environmental movement Gore felt the need to re-write Genesis. He recognized that a value shift was necessary to accomplish his green socialism.
The 1992 Biocentric United Nations Treaty did exactly the same thing. “Nature has an integral set of values (cultural, spiritual, and material). Where humans are one strand in nature’s web and all living creatures are considered equal. Therefore, the natural way is the right and human activities should be molded along nature’s rhythms.”
And just how might it be ensured that “human activities” be “molded along nature’s rhythms” and that humans recognize the “equality” of nature, since all of nature has God’s image, per Al Gore? Big Government—that’s how. It forces us to honor this “value shift” by recognizing humanity as no more valuable than a free-flowing stream, beautiful giant mountain, or a tall tree in the forest. And it is not “all men are created equal, but all living creatures.” No supreme value to mankind.
Denying the supreme value of man by jettisoning the biblical worldview lies at the bottom of the political left today. As Joe Biden himself stated on January 27, 2021, after one week into his presidency, his entire agenda is a “whole-government approach to put climate change at the center of our domestic national security, and foreign policy.”
That about sums up the entire machinery of government. All rooted in anti-biblical concepts that are the heartbeat of the Environmental Green Agenda. As stated in The First Global Revolution, a 1991 report by the Club of Rome, a powerhouse establishment group populated by people such as Al Gore, Bill Clinton, George Soros, David Rockefeller and Mikhail Gorbachev, “The common enemy of humanity is man.”
Psalm 58 is David’s passionate prayer about corrupt judges (political leaders) who devastate and destroy the righteous by unjust public laws and regulations. The first verse reads, “Do you indeed decree what is right, you gods?”The question implies a “no” answer, just as v. 2 states, “No in your hearts you devise wrongs … your hands deal out violence on the earth.”
Here, the Hebrew Bible refers to civic leaders and judges as “gods,” just as does Psalm 82:6. What about this reference to political or civic rulers as “gods?”
In Psalm 82:6, Jesus makes clear that these judges are so called because “to them the Word of God came.” That is, they were inspired of God. The explanation here, however, “lies in the conception of such power as bestowed by God, and in some sense a delegation of His attribute …” This is to say that leaders, popularly elected by a democratic process or not, are invested with such authority as to enable them to be entrusted with God’s blessings of my liberty. To oversee that my freedom is protected and guarded in the civic sphere.
This is why Thomas Jefferson referred to the official obligations of political leaders as guarding “the sacred deposit” entrusted to them. What is the “sacred deposit?” Nothing less than the “rights and liberties of their fellow citizens.” For this same reason John Adams referred to politics as a “divine science.”
Cicero was an ancient Roman writer before Christ whom our Founding Fathers loved to quote. Remarkably, Cicero was able to see this same principle clearly enough in spite of his pagan environment. Regarding the function of civic rulers Cicero observed: “For there is really no other occupation in which human virtue approaches more closely the function of the gods than that of founding new States or preserving those already in existence.”
Old Testament scholar John Goldingay summarizes this well. “When the New Testament talks about these dynamics, it sometimes refers to powers and authorities … in a way that might suggest that there is something supernatural about them.”.
In sum, elected leaders in American society are actually invested with authority by the people that empower them to operate in positions which, in some ways, make them spokesmen of God. Hence, the Bible’s reference to them as “gods.”
Does This Reference Shield Leaders from Criticism?
Some suppose that, because the New Testament commands “honor the king” (1 Pet. 2:17), that critical review of a political leader or his or her policies, is off-limits to the Christian. Nothing could be further from the truth.
David was struck with deep sorrow regarding the leadership of Israel at the time of composing this Psalm. His prayer to God (Psalm 58) recognizes the reality that the forces of government were anything but honorable. Instead, their decisions were not founded upon any law, nor supported by any principle of justice! Because of this, his language is sharp, strong and even harsh.
Not only did these leaders not “exercise authority uprightly” (v. 1), but “with their mind” they “devise acts of wrongdoing in the country.”
Where leadership of a nation lacks sound principles of honor and personal integrity, the people suffer. “ … their rulers do not rule in a way that gives priority to integrity an concern for the people.”Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
“With their hearts they devise wrongs” and with their “hands” they “deal out violence” (v. 2). There is no justice in their policies. “Their poison,” or speech proceeding from their mouths, is “like the venom from a snake; like a “cobra that has stopped its ears” (v. 4). In the ancient world there were persons that charmed, lulled into inactivity, serpents, so as to prevent them from biting.
The singer of Israel then prays (v. 6-8) that God would “smash the teeth in their mouth and break the fangs of the lions.” Not a pretty picture of the wicked character of political leaders. They are like “lions,” tearing apart their prey (the people) by their unrighteous policies. In the position of “gods,” yet acting like hungry lions (see also Isa. 5:29).
It is reflecting upon these types of Psalms that our Founding Fathers insisted that, if we wish to enjoy God’s temporal blessings on the earth, leaders need to exhibit personal virtue and morality. But this is exactly what we do not have. Instead, like David’s lament, we have an American government filled with wicked people that “devise wrongs”, “deal out violence” by their policies, “speak lies,” and spew out “venom like that of a serpent,” and shreds apart the country “like lions.”
Consider two broad facts that demonstrate this. These two facts are the unjust, immoral and unconstitutional establishment of a Welfare State, while at the same time opening the Border to allow invasion of our nation.
The initial sin is the diabolical Welfare State by which the fruits of one’s labor becomes stolen property by ruling forces so they may redistribute to the poorer. In this bribery fashion followers of the Democrat Socialist Party pretend to be assisting the poor! Non-thinkers suppose Joe Biden is actually aiding people.
The second sin is the wicked policy of Open Borders which invites the entire world to be supported by the American taxpayer via this Welfare State. These two political legacies, working in tandem, will end America as we have known it.
It is ironic that powerful people in office, such as the Joe Biden’s, are compared by inspired David to deadly poisonous snakes that refuse to listen to any reasonable voice that tries to stop them from injecting their venom into the populace.
One other note needs be made here. It is the solid link between:
Character and Conduct
This is an important feature in human composition that cannot be overlooked.
Steven J. Lawsonnotes that:
An inseparable connection exists between a person’s character and his conduct. The former is the source of the latter. Some people claim that a leader’s private life does not matter, that we should be concerned only about his public performance. But what a leader is internally will always show up externally. This is the focus of Psalm 58.
The key lesson to remember about the Psalm, however, is this. David gives a scathing indictment of unjust rulers. Their hands meted out violence and injustice. Their words were as “venom” and they spoke like “snake charmers” (58:5). But David, nor any inspired spokesman, called upon men to take matters into their own hands. Instead, leave vengeance to the Lord. Recognize and call out the evil—but let the Lord settle the accounts.
Strictly speaking, the right to “keep and bear arms” is not a “Constitutional right.” It is a right I own from God to protect my life, my family, and my property—whether individually or collectively. I have a God-given responsibility to protect myself and my family from harm. This is a law of nature and it is prior to the Constitution itself. So, it matters not what the Constitution says or does not say on the subject.
The Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment with this in mind. It is a “Thou shalt not touch” list written to the federal government. As a matter of fact, the Bill of Rights itself is a list of prohibitions, not rights. The reason this is the case is because the founders recognized the presence of Natural Law—such as self-preservation and self-government– upon which the laws of nations should be built.
The Neo-Marxist Democrat Party problem begins here. They do not, even if some of them believe in God, operate upon the premise that God gives us anything. To them, everything is a grant of the government—including the “right to keep and bear arms,” which may be repealed if they see fit. What the government gives, the government can take away.
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are the worst of the worse of the totalitarian gun-grabbers. Joe Biden and the Socialists who run this country want to repeal the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. They are back-door thieves. Passage of this Act makes it easier for gun manufacturers to be held civilly liable for people who commit crimes with their products, for the law was designed to shield gun manufacturers from lawsuits in cases where guns were used in crimes.
Last February 24, Joe Biden made the following statement on the campus of The College of Charleston in South Carolina. “I’ve got news for you gun manufacturers. I’m coming for you and I’m going to take you down.”
Biden has promised to sign an executive order—something with which he is intimately familiar—to ban “assault weapons.” But, first, he does not know what an assault weapon is. Biden includes in this list AR-15’s and other semi-automatic weapons. Second, the facts of American gun violence do not point to semi-automatic weapons. But no matter. Biden will have his foot in the door.
More concerning than this, however, is the current rash of Red-Flag Laws that have been supported not only by the Biden-Harris team, but politicians of both parties.Ron Paul warns that “Police officers in 20 states and the District of Columbia already have the authority to take away an individual’s Second Amendment rights based in allegations and without giving the individual due process.”
Even a “psychological evaluation could … be used to deny an individual Second Amendment rights because they may engage in ‘domestic terrorism.’” Paul added that “Among those likely to be considered as potential ‘domestic terrorists’ are opponents of US foreign policy, mass surveillance, the income tax, the Federal Reserve, and, ironically—gun control.”
Consider also the rabid anti-gun stance of Biden’s hand-picked staff. VP Kamala Harris’ anti-freedom position is well-known. Xavier Becerra, Biden’s pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, has advocated for more onerous gun-control measures. He is on record as saying that AR-type rifles are “not in common use for lawful purposes like self-defense.”
Dr. Vivek Murthy is Biden’s choice for U.S. Surgeon General. Murthy tweeted: “Tired of politicians playing politics w/ guns, putting lives at risk b/c they’re scared of the NRA. Guns are a health care issue. #debatehealth.”
Jen O’Malley Dillon, Biden’s campaign manager, worked for Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke, the candidate who said, “Yes, we’re going to take your AR-15’s.” Pete Buttigieg has been selected by Biden to head the Department of Transportation. He has openly pushed for gun registration and banning AR-15’s as well as desiring to hold the gun industry accountable.
Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, has openly written that the gun violence problem in America is due to the “widespread availability” of guns in America. Jennifer Granholm, former governor of Michigan, is Biden’s nominee for energy secretary. She too has called for an “assault weapons ban.”
Deb Haaland has been confirmed as the new secretary of the Department of the Interior. Her calls for stripping Americans of the right to keep and bear arms, starting at “background checks,” “closing gun-show loopholes,” and “taking on the NRA” are public record. The bold-faced liar, Susan Rice, who heads Biden’s Domestic Policy Council, is an infamous anti-gunner.
Biden’s AG pick, Merrick Garland, has also sated he would support the The White House’s efforts to restrict gun ownership in America.
All in all, Biden’s Administration is the most anti-freedom, anti-American, pro-totalitarian government that we have seen. If Biden gets his way on gun control, America has seen the last of its freedoms.
Wisconsin has emerged as a battleground in the debate over whether to apply to Congress to call a convention to propose amendments under Article V of the Constitution, otherwise known as a constitutional convention (Con-Con). Supporters and opponents of a convention clashed at a recent Wisconsin Senate committee hearing, displaying the stark differences between the two sides.
The Con-Con Resolutions
Wisconsin is a top target of Con-Con proponents in the current legislative sessions, with four resolutions having been introduced.
Two of them — Senate Joint Resolution 8 (S.J.R. 8) and Assembly Joint Resolution 9 (A.J.R. 9) — follow the wording of Mark Meckler’s Convention of States (COS) Project application, urging Congress to call a convention to propose amendments “that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.”
The hearing, held on Wednesday, March 24, in the Senate Committee on Government Operations, Legal Review and Consumer Protection, was over S.J.R. 8 and S.J.R. 12.
False Claims and Tall Tales
Following testimonies from sponsors of the resolutions, the committee heard testimony from Meckler, the president of COS. Meckler started off by spouting his tall tale that Article V of the U.S. Constitution was the Founding Fathers’ solution to federal overreach, ignoring the reality that constitutional enforcement was the Founders’ solution to usurpations.
The traveling salesman then discussed each of the three topics advocated for in his COS resolutions — term limits, fiscal restraints, and jurisdiction limitations on the federal government. According to Meckler, legislators could use the resolution text to enact a number of constitutional changes for each of the three individual topics.
While the suggestions Meckler listed — including reversing illegal Supreme Court precedents, limiting the Court to nine justices, and term limits for unelected government bureaucrats — might sound appealing to conservatives, they illustrate one of the many dangers of the COS resolution specifically, and, more broadly, any Article V convention.
The text is so vague that even if a convention did not stray from the resolution text — a prospect no one should count on — the text could be twisted to justify a slew of amendments that increase and entrench the power of the federal government. Tellingly, a September 2016 Article V convention simulation hosted by Convention of States ended up proposing amendments that did just that.
In the most revealing moment of his testimony, Meckler attempted to refute his constitutionalist critics by equating case law with the Constitution. While constitutionalists argue for enforcing the Constitution, Meckler questioned “which constitution they’re referring to.” Holding up a book listing every Supreme Court ruling, Meckler stated that case law has become the real “Constitution of the United States of America.” Thus, rather than nullifying these rulings — much of which are blatantly unconstitutional — Meckler claimed the solution is to change the text of the Constitution itself.
Shortly after Meckler, Ken Quinn, the northern regional director for U.S. Term Limits, testified. Among other statements, he claimed that “there’s no such thing as a runaway convention.” He further stated that an “Article V convention” is not synonymous with a “constitutional convention,” baselessly claiming that the latter would require unanimous consent.
These two allegations by Quinn are easily refuted by looking at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Originally convened to merely amend the Articles of Confederation, the 1787 convention led to the drafting and ratification of the current Constitution. Furthermore, while the former document required unanimous consent for making constitutional changes, the convention threw out that rule and required only nine of the 13 states to ratify the new constitution.
During his testimony, Quinn claimed that he had once supported “an organization” that opposed a Con-Con but changed his mind after researching the matter himself. He made multiple false claims about The John Birch Society, including that it argues the U.S. Constitution was illegally adopted, and that it originally supported an Article V convention.
The John Birch Society Responds
It was not long before Christian Gomez, research project manager for JBS, was called upon to give his testimony. He began by refuting the peddlers’ claims about an Article V convention and JBS. For example, he noted JBS’s 1967 response to a letter inquiring about a Con-Con in which it unequivocally rejected the idea.
Gomez also set the record straight about the lobbyists’ unfounded assertions that an “Article V convention” is different from a “constitutional convention” and urged the committee not to get distracted by mere semantics.
Not only does no a such distinction exist in Article V’s text, but contrary to Meckler’s claim that his proposal would not be a “convention of delegates,” Gomez noted New York’s 1789 application for a “Convention of Deputies” under Article V. More recent application resolutions, including in Louisiana and Connecticut, have used the term “constitutional convention.”
Additionally, Gomez pointed out that even if a distinction existed, it could easily be abandoned in the same way that the 1787 constitutional convention abandoned the Articles of Confederation’s requirement of unanimity for the ratification of constitutional changes.
Further illustrating how the term “convention of states” is merely a lobbyist-created talking point to make a Con-Con more appealing to state legislators, Gomez noted how Meckler himself had called for “single-subject constitutional conventions” in his 2012 book Tea Party Patriots and how he co-hosted the “Conference on the Constitutional Convention” with left-wing law professor Lawrence Lessig.
Having refuted the Con-Con peddlers, Gomez used his testimony to note Article V’s purpose of fixing potential defects in the Constitution, rather than to limit the federal government. He further noted that an Article V convention would be more likely to increase and entrench an expansive federal government through poorly-worded amendments, amendments that blatantly increase the size and power federal government, or a new constitution altogether. The current problems with the federal government, Gomez argued, stem from a disregard of the Constitution rather than problems with the document.
In the limited time he had to testify (more on that later), this writer emphasized Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s warning that “This is not a good century to write a constitution,” and how the Left would take advantage of any Article V convention to advance a far-left agenda in line with international norms.
Committee hearings are intended for legislators to examine arguments for and against proposed legislation prior to making a decision. However, Senator Mary Felzkowski (R-Irma) showed her cards — and bias — early. This was not surprising, considering her sponsorship of both the COS and term-limits resolutions — ironically, she is currently serving her fifth term in the legislature.
After asking Gomez his solution to federal overreach in lieu of an Article V convention — to which he aptly responded by pointing out officials’ duty under Article VI to nullify unconstitutional laws, and how it is an immediate solution as opposed to the Article V process that often lasts decades — Felzkowski began attacking his position.
The five-term legislator claimed that nullification would be ineffective at reining in federal spending such as the $1.9 trillion spending, to which Gomez noted the importance of educating citizens to vote out fiscally irresponsible members of Congress, and also the ineffectiveness of most balanced-budget amendments. In fact, states can help rein in federal spending — 80 percent of which is unconstitutional — by abolishing the Federal Reserve and by passing a State Sovereignty and Federal Tax Funds Act.
Unsatisfied, Felzkowski accused Gomez of basing his arguments on the dangers of a Con-Con on hypotheticals — despite the other side relying far more on untested hypotheticals. She ended her tirade by claiming Gomez was “only including parts of the information” — as if the other side does not do this — and that “it’s very hard to take what you’re saying seriously.” Notwithstanding the irony, it is unfortunate that a legislator used the hearing to be an advocate rather than an observer.
The Uhl Family Steals the Show
The most impressive testimonies during the hearing were delivered by the five-strong Uhl family.
The first in the family to testify were Christy and Alise. Christy, 11, stated the obvious fact that the U.S. Constitution is not the problem, meaning the solution is to punish corrupt politicians rather than change the Constitution. Alise, 12, noted that the Founding Fathers, who adhered to Christian principles, sought freedom and a limited government. Those principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution would be in danger with a constitutional convention under Article V.
Immediately after the girls’ testimonies, Senator Duey Stroebel (R-Saukville), another sponsor of the two resolutions, went on the defensive, repeating the falsehood that an “Article V convention” is somehow distinct from a “constitutional convention.” Such a response was unprompted and unnecessary, indicating the effectiveness of the girls’ testimonies.
The girls’ parents, Curtis and Dominique, also testified. Among other thoughtful points, Curtis noted that when considering the COS resolution, a representative had stated “we have to do something,” a poor attitude when the Constitution and freedom are at risk. Curtis also referred to Meckler’s lofty statement that state legislators “have the power to alter the structure of the federal government.” The former noted that only 2,445 representatives and senators from 38 states can initiate a constitutional convention that would affect over 300 million people — a frightening thought.
Dominique, in addition to pointing out several reasons why a Con-Con is a dangerous idea and referring to alternative constitutions crafted by the Deep State, called out the self-promoting lobbyist Meckler for lying about COS’s popularity. She also went into depth about realistic steps the states can take — and are presently taking — to nullify the federal government.
The nullification bills Dominique mentioned included a Texas bill to comprehensively examine the constitutionality of federal actions and, if necessary, nullify them; a Missouri bill to robustly prevent enforcement of past, present, and future gun controls; a Kentucky bill to prevent unconstitutional federal National Guard deployments; and an Oklahoma bill to nullify unconstitutional presidential executive orders. Dominique showed the committee that a wide variety of superior options exist to an Article V constitutional convention.
Another impressive testimony was given by Elayna, 15. She pointed out a significant reason why an Article V convention is particularly dangerous today: Human nature is depraved, and the character, wisdom, and morals present among the Founding Fathers — and present in early U.S. history — have significantly deteriorated in the nation today.
If a convention under Article V happened today, Elayna stated, political leaders would not trust in God as the Founders had, but they will largely be overcome with greed and seek to advance their personal agendas. As evidence, she noted how Con-Con advocates are already seeking to aggregate unrelated, centuries-old Article V applications with newer ones in an attempt to reach the 34-state threshold.
Furthermore, Elayna asked, if amendments such as congressional term limits or a Balanced Budget Amendment are so popular, why can the regular process not be used? Rather than open up the Constitution in a precarious time using an untested Article V convention, she concluded, any proposed amendments should go through the regular process.
Elayna received a barrage of questions from the committee members, particularly Senators Stroebel and Felzkowski. Their questions included why the Founding Fathers included Article V in the Constitution and what alternatives to an Article V convention should be used. Elayna answered those questions ably, impressing many of those watching.
The committee’s questioning of Elayna, along with Stroebel’s unprompted comments following her sisters’ testimonies, indicated a level of fear in response to their testimonies. They had no other reason to make those comments or question Elayna so intensely. Furthermore, they asked no questions of the girls’ parents.
The Uhl Family’s testimonies — particularly their daughters’ — were effective, powerful, and intelligent. Being a family that homeschools, their testimonies also illustrate the importance and clear advantage of giving one’s children a proper education, divorced from the left-wing indoctrination and dumbing-down present in the public-school system.
Throughout the hearing, a notable distinction between the two sides’ testimonies was their substance. Those in opposition focused solely on the subject of the hearing, namely why an Article V convention would be harmful to Americans’ God-given freedoms and how Article VI offers an immensely superior alternative.
On the other hand, most of the testimonies in favor — with the exception of a select few — were vague and did not address the topic at hand. For example, many of the individuals focused on their life stories or talked about problems in the federal government without discussing how Article V, specifically, would solve those problems.
The committee also was inconsistent in its treatment of the two sides. Immediately before this writer testified, it imposed a five-minute rule for testimonies, preventing me from delivering half of my testimony. However, multiple subsequent individuals in favor of a convention — who largely did not directly address the topic at hand — spoke longer than five minutes without interruption.
Finally, Dr. Wayne Sedlak, a pastor from West Bend, registered to testify in opposition to the resolutions with the help of a legislative assistant. However, the committee never called on him to testify. After Dr. Sedlak confronted the committee about this error, it allowed him to submit written testimony. Nonetheless, excluding him from the oral hearings deprived the committee and those watching of a powerful voice in opposition to a convention and in favor of nullification.
As of this article’s writing, S.J.R. 8 and S.J.R. 12 still await an executive session, in which the committee will decide whether to send the resolutions to the floor. Whichever way it, and the legislature, decides, could have significant ramifications for the entire country and the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution.
Wisconsin residents can contact their legislators in opposition to a Con-Con by visiting The John Birch Society’s legislative alert here. Everyone can take action against Con-Con applications in their respective states by visiting JBS’s action project page here.
Peter Rykowski: Talking about NULLIFICATION. Many states are nullifying unconstitutional laws; Texas leads the way!
Jackie Schlegel: Representative for Texans for Vaccine Choice. Discussion centers around the many errors and mistakes that surround the COVID 19 vaccines . Jackie will be at the Wichita Falls Tea Party this coming Thus./ April 1 at 7:00.
American Liberty with Bill Lockwood is about the culture of America — not simply about politics. Bill Lockwood is a preacher, teacher, writer, and radio host with a weekly program based in West Texas.
John the Baptist was imprisoned and beheaded by Herod Antipas (Mark 6:14-29; Matt. 14:1-12). The territory of Antipas included the Trans-Jordan district where was located the famous fortress called “Machaerus.” It was here that John was imprisoned, according to Josephus (Antiquities 18:116-119). Eusebius, a later Christian historian, corroborates the location.
The fortress of Machaerus (Greek word meaning “sword”) was originally built by the Hasmonean Alexander Jannaeus in 90 B.C., destroyed by the Roman general Gabinius in 57 B.C., transformed into a royal palace and city by King Herod the Great in 30 B.C., and destroyed by the Nabatean king Aretas IV in AD 36.A post-Herodian fortress was reconstructed by Judean rebels during their final war with Rome.
The fortress was located on a hilltop east of the Dead Sea, providing a panoramic view all the way to Jericho and the Temple of Jerusalem, Masada to the south, and even to a well north of Jericho overlooking the Jordan Valley.
Machaerus was said to be the second most fortified place in Israel in the time of Christ, only behind Jerusalem. Destroyed by the Romans in the winter of 71/72 A.D., the post-Herodian Machaerus disappeared from the maps for nearly two millennia.
The fascinating element of this biblical site is that its ruins have been excavated by archaeologists for the past fifty years. Its once magnificent 7,000 square-foot royal courtyard complete with a throne-niche, where once sat Herod the Great as well as Antipas, has now seen the light of day. With the assistance of modern technology that is able to trace and even project the figures of the buildings, it is almost as if one is stepping back into a 2,000-year-old time capsule.
Biblical figures come to life. Herod the Great, his son Tetrarch Herod Antipas and his second wife, Princess Herodias, her daughter Princess Salome, and of course, the one and only John the Baptist. Remarkable reconstruction models are found in Biblical Archaeology Review.
The last time or two that my home alarm system repairman was here, we were talking about Operation Paperclip, the secret, illegal ploy used to spirit Nazi scientists from facing charges at the Nuremburg Trials and bring them to the United States. Yesterday, he sent me a video of author Annie Jacobsen (an excellent writer, researcher and New York Times bestseller), giving a presentation on her new book OperationPaperclip.
I watched Jacobsen’s talk and was bowled over by a statement she made in responding to a question from the audience. A gentleman asked about the scientists who were being held for the Nuremburg Trials, but were wanted by U.S. military and government officials to get these scientists brought to the US as “good scientists” i.e., not evil Nazis, instead of being tried for their war crimes. Jacobsen noted (not making excuses for the subterfuge of getting the scientists “off the hook“), that the hue and cry immediately after the war ended was “. . .that the Soviet threat was considered extreme much earlier than we think. It was in the months after the war the Intelligence Committee, that reported to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave a document to the JCO that said, ‘we must prepare for total war!’ That was the quote they used. The war would be with the Soviets and would involve ABC warfare – atomic, biological, and chemical. So, we say, we must get these scientists into Paperclip or the Soviets will.”
That was the political line if people heard about these scientists. Was it true? Were we really preparing for “total war” with the U.S.S.R?
Let’s get into that.
I’m often quoting Sun Tzu’s “know your enemy”. Great advice, but when you realize the enemy is your government, it can make you wonder if you are crazy. Especially when said government is being the hailed as the savior of both the world and western culture, and, at the same time, is handing over everything to our supposed archenemy, Soviet Russia.
In the six-part series I did recently on Cancel Culture, I defined the enemy as cultural Marxism and showed how it was embedded into every aspect of our lives by Americans who, for whatever reason hate the liberty provided by the United States and its founding documents (I believe that is the one-world government globalists working with the Marxists to achieve this). But, as I studied cultural Marxism and its tools of asymmetric warfare – political correctness, Critical Theory, Critical Race Theory, and the plethora of other evil tactics to disable, then destroy, our culture, I just discovered what I think is equally as important and maybe more abhorrent than all of that. That a major part of our history was re-written. What we learned in school was such a distortion of the truth, it had to be written by masters of deception.
What’s so abhorrent about that? And what does it have to do with Cancel Culture? Today, we are living in a world where, thanks to moral relativism, many of us feel like we are reeling every day when we read the latest news. There is no black and white. But there are socially and politically acceptable truths (which are lies), and condemned speech which is truth.
My reason for bringing it up now is that the highest people in our government changed the whole course of events in the world, making enemies out of friends, and friends out of those wishing us dead. Now I understand why we have been known as ugly Americans. A major event, WWII, was a defining period where those in our highest government offices were effecting these truths to lies and vice versa, lies to truth.
How do we know the truth? A few individuals in our government questioned things that were said and done. In this case it was a senator from the Russell Committee who was “deeply disturbed” and showed McCarthy what were proven to be the complete and correct intelligence reports from Yalta — the intelligence report of 50 of Chief of Staff in charge of War Planning, General George Catlett Marshall’s officers “all with the rank of colonel and above” – an intelligence report which urged a course directly contrary to what was done at Yalta and confirmed at Potsdam. Yet, Marshall, as Roosevelt’s military advisor, approve the Yalta agreement, which was drafted by Alger Hiss, Andrei‘ Gromyko, and Gladwyn Jebb.
The deeply damning report of April 12,1945, that was not seen by President Roosevelt:
The entry of Soviet Russia into the Asiatic war would be a political event of world-shaking importance, the ill effect of which would be felt for decades to come. Its military significance at this stage of the war would be relatively unimportant. The entry of Soviet Russia into the Asiatic war would destroy America’s position in Asia quite as effectively as our position is now destroyed in Europe east of the Elbe and beyond the Adriatic.
If Russia enters the Asiatic war, China will lose her independence, to become the Poland of Asia; Korea, the Asiatic Rumania; Manchuria, The Soviet Bulgaria. Whether more than a nominal China will exist after the impact of the Russian armies is felt very doubtful. Chiang may well have to depart and a Chinese Soviet government may be installed in Nanking which we would have to recognize.
To take a line of action which would save few lives now, and only a little time, at an unpredictable cost in lives, treasure, and honor in the future – and simultaneously destroy our ally China, would be an act of treachery that would make the Atlantic Charter and our hopes for world peace a tragic farce.
Under no circumstances should we pay the Soviet Union to destroy China. Theis would certainly injure the material and moral position of the United States in Asia.
That was the catalyst for McCarthy’s review of Marshall’s actions during WWII which resulted in America’s Retreatfrom Victory. (Perhaps one of the reasons he was later denounced and ridiculed – McCarthyism is the lie named after him, early Cancel Culture.)
Diana West, in her excellent book, American Betrayal, writes of the early 1945 period and a letter from Roosevelt to former governor of Pennsylvania, special representative of FDR abroad, and outspoken patriot, George H. Earle, “I have read your letter of March 21, “. . . and have noted with concern your unfavorable opinion of one of our allies at the very time when such a publication from a former emissary of mine might do irreparable harm to our war effort.”
Really? Or was that harm to the Soviet war effort? The Roosevelt administration, penetrated, fooled, subverted, in effect hijacked, by Soviet agents, as a matter of national policy, mixed them up, much to the world’s deep, vast suffering. This ‘sell-out’ to Stalin as critics tagged it (and they didn’t know the half of it), would become a bone of sharpest and most vociferous contention that the conspirators of silence on the Left, in the Democratic Party, and among the Washington elites would bury for as long as possible, desperately throwing mud over it and anyone who wanted to let the sun shine in. Why? . . .the publication of the Yalta papers, for example, would ‘embarrass’ too many people and, in the acid paraphrase of Bryton Barron, fired Yalta archivist and author of Inside the State Department, ‘lead to demands for publication of the minutes of other conferences.
By 1956, as Barron notes, only a heavily edited version of Yalta had been released, and only after a Soviet-style (Soviet-inspired?) disinformation campaign promoted the notion that the crucial role Alger Hiss played at Yalta was, au contraire, ‘largely that of a notetaker.”
During WWII, the powers of the West were Churchill and Roosevelt, with a sidekick, Stalin, who was going to help the West stop the Nazis and the Japanese.
As the saying goes, history is written by the victors, but I doubt if most people understand the depth of the lying and scheming that is hidden from us – supposedly forever. A quote from McCarthy’s introduction to the book speaks of truths virtually unknown today, “If I had named the men responsible for our tremendous loss, all of the Administration apologists and the camp-following element of press and radio led by the Daily Worker would have screamed ‘the Big Lie,’ ‘irresponsible.’ ‘smear,’ ‘Congressional immunity,’ etc., etc., etc. However, it was the Truman branch of the Democratic Party meeting at Denver, which named the men responsible for the disaster which they called a ‘great victory’ – Dean Gooderham Acheson and George Catlett Marshall. By what tortured reasoning they arrived at the conclusion that the loss of 100 million people a year to Communism was a ‘great victory,’ was unexplained.”
Why was the president not given that report?
Marshall had been passed over and passed on in his early Army career and was expected to drop out and get work as a civilian. But chance(?), instead, advanced him over many more senior and experienced men, to be named Military Chief of Staff, reporting to President Roosevelt. Harry Hopkins and Mrs. Roosevelt were two of his backers. The federal government was riddled with communists.
Almost the entire plans of the war were being side-tracked or otherwise having a spanner thrown in to mess with the West’s conducting of the war to achieve interests best suited to a free world.
First, we must consider what went on at Yalta. If, as Hanson John Baldwin observes, we lost the peace because of great political mistakes in WWII, (spelled out in first part of McCarthy’s book) then it is clear that those mistakes culminated in the controlling decisions made at the conference of Teheran and Yalta. It is my judgement that we lost the peace in Asia at Yalta. At Teheran, Marshall’s will prevailed in concert of that of Stalin regarding the Mediterranean and Eastern Europe. (emphasis, mine) At Yalta, Marshall’s will prevailed, with that of Stalin, regarding Russia’s entry into the far Eastern was as a full-fledged partner entitled to the spoils of such participation. . ..
The President, bearing the marks of his approaching dissolution, traveled the thousands of weary miles . . . to treat with the tyrant, to seek accord with him, and to make the bargains over Poland and China that today plague and shame us all. The principal, the most utterly damaging, of these bargains contained the bribe he paid to Stalin for his eleventh-hour participation in the war against Japan. (Which was by then, irrelevant.
The one area I want address here is China. China was a great ally of the United States and the U.S. was, supposedly, working with China to keep the USSR from taking over Asia. Roosevelt thought and said so. But those working for him had other plans for China.
Manchuria is the richest part of China. In terms of area and natural resources it may be described as the Texas of China. …
It was a rich, highly developed Manchuria that was at stake at Yalta. It was Manchuria which Franklin D. Roosevelt thrust upon the Russians; it was, moreover, conferred upon the new barbarians with full understanding that the United States was thereby satisfying an old imperialistic design of the Kremlin. The very language of the secret protocol which sealed the bargain at Yalta recognized this fact. What Roosevelt ceded to Stalin at Yalta, without the knowledge or consent of the Chinese, whose sovereignty there we always had upheld, was, and I quote from the work of Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., in restoration of the “former rights of Russia violated by the treacherous attack of Japan in 1904.” The testimony before the Russell Committee shows that Chiang Kai-shek was not invited to the Yalta Conference and that the terms of the agreement selling out Chinese interests were kept secret from him. At the Cairo Conference, however, it was solemnly agreed with him that China’s rights in Manchuria would be fully respected and protected. When Wedemeyer appeared before the Russell Committee, he testified that when Ambassador Hurley informed Chiang Kai-shek of the Yalta agreement which sealed the doom of the Republic of China, Chiang was so shocked that he asked Hurley to repeat it before he could believe it.
The project was not disguised. It was a nakedly imperialistic aggression over the prostrate body of China. What Roosevelt sealed and delivered in the protocol agreed upon by him and Stalin in a secret parley consuming only eleven minutes, and thereafter kept locked away in White House safe for many months, were the historic levers of power over China. …
No wonder we are considered “ugly Americans” around the world. Obviously, deep in the bowels of our government, many Communists and commie sympathizers were working night and day to both sabotage the West’s efforts in the war to keep the Russians as far away as possible from Western Europe, and to keep the citizens in the dark about the machinations going on to cancel us. With their singlemindedness, they were corrupting our entire government with their actions, and destroying the integrity of our once great nation.
What does this whole sordid transaction teach us about the good faith of the advisers of Roosevelt and the assorted liberals, Communists, Communist sympathizers. And agents of the Kremlin – the Achesons, the Lattimores, the Phillip Jessups, and the Institute of Pacific Relations – who have for so long been insincerely befuddling the people with talk of imperialism and people’s rights in Asia.
Why, merely this, that in their minds the imperialism of the west, that decaying instrument of European expansion, is wicked and must be opposed. The imperialism of Russia is not only commendable but must be advanced by every means of diplomacy and war at whatever cost to the United States. That is the liber-leftist doctrine on imperialism. Have we heard one liberal voice raised in the Senate or elsewhere in condemnation Roosevelt’s surrender to Russian imperialism at Yalta? This is the test, and by it we may measure the monstrous hypocrisy of the liberal elements in Congress and in the country which have assisted in and applauded the surrender of all China to Russia without the firing of a single Russian shot.
There was a lot of talk of the U.S. trying to entice Russia into the Japanese war, which was pure disinformation. Russia wanted to attack Japan and, far more important, wanted a seat at the peace table where the spoils of the war would be divided. Back in 1942, in a meeting with Averell Harriman in Moscow, “Stalin told Harriman then that Japan was the historic enemy of Russia and that her eventual defeat was essential to Russian interests. (emphasis, mine.) Roosevelt was (falsely) advised by the Joint Chiefs of Staff that “we had a long, hard row to hoe with the Japanese and that without Russia’s help we might not achieve victory”. The Japanese were already out peace feelers, but this fact was kept from Roosevelt.
As McCarthy sums it up: Was this a sincere endeavor by the master of global strategy to advance American interest? Did we sorely need Russian assistance? Or was it another in the baffling pattern of General Marshall’s interventions in the course of the great war which conduces to the well-being of the Kremlin.
Re China, McCarthy again lays it out so that we can’t pretend not to understand: Was it to the Kremlin’s interest to march its armies into Manchuria, from which they had been barred since 1905 by the Kwantung army, and to be in possession there when the war ended? If some Americans did not grasp the strategic importance of Manchuria, there is certainly abundant evidence that the Kremlin, faithful to Lenin’s dictum that “he who controls China controls the world,” never lost sight of it. . . . Any intelligent American, after giving the matter sufficient thought, would know that the aim of Roosevelt and Marshall at Yalta should have been not how to get the Russians in, but how to keep them out.”
John Stewart Service was one of the men whose job was to assure the Departments of War and State that “the Chinese Communists were moderate reformers, simple agrarians in the style of Thomas Jefferson, (emphasis, mine) with no subservience to Moscow. Service sent a report to the State Department in 1944, stating:
Politically, any orientation which the Chinese Communists may once have had toward the Soviet Union seems to be a thing of the past. The Communists have worked to make their thinking and program realistically Chinese, and they are carrying out democratic policies which they expect the United States to approve and sympathetically support.
I could add ten or 50 more pages of notes and quotes, but I think anyone who wants to see can read the writing on the wall – or in the reports. The point I want to make is that Soviet Russia was never the enemy of the Deep State and the upper echelons of our federal government. So that statement: ‘we must prepare for total war!’, was pure disinformation, an asymmetrical warfare tactic that they have now pulled off for 80 years.
West said: . . .we were, the whole lot of us, with precious few exceptions, a nation of Captain Hillses, a nation of Roosevelts, a nation of Hisses, a nation . . . manipulated, inured, numbed, cushioned, silenced – continually protect from the sharpest of timely revelations, continually told to be afraid of them. We were impervious to the cries of the most plaintive Cassandras, who themselves were often pressured or consigned to mumble into their memoirs or grumble off to Samoa. Only the most principled, the most shrill, the most desperate, or the most stubborn were constitutionally (in the personal sense) able to rise above the overwhelming buss and static. It was on this level where the battle royal really began, pitting the long truth-teller against the forces of suppression, in a political and informational landscape that had been denuded of all vital context. This reality vacuum, this echo chamber of lies, was both created and preserved by what Kent Cooper (executive of AP) quite intriguingly paints as autocrats in charge of both governments (U.S. and USSR). “Clothed with autocratic powers,” he writes, ‘individuals in charge of both governments demonstrated how political censorship had helped Russia to win the war and the peace while England and America helped Russia win the war but lost the peace.”
Everything we thought we were taught about history is a lie. Our country betrayed Chaing Kai-Shek, China, Eastern Europe, so many areas, and would have done so to more places like Japan, if we hadn’t had Generals with integrity in those places. All because we let our guard down and allowed people like the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Rothschilds, Harry Hopkins, Acheson, members of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), and George Catlett Marshall have any control.
I certainly haven’t covered all the lies, misdirection, and treachery here, but I hope I have shown enough to help you understand that there is a confederacy of evil men and women working against everything we represent. They should be hung.
Are we now preparing for total war? Now that we gave China (Stalin’s key to world power), and it has become such a powerful force of Marxist Communism, will they, perhaps with Iran, realize it is time to finish up the business started in the 1940s to destroy America with its Liberty loving people? We are the last bulwark. If America goes, Liberty may survive, for a while, in some small areas of the world. But not for long.
As we are working to take back our local governments, we need to be sure to remove any Marxists, Communists, or those who abet them to the detriment of our Republic and our Liberty. Otherwise, we are moving backwards.
 During World War II, Richard Russell chaired a special committee that traveled extensively to observe the quality and effectiveness of war materiel under combat conditions.
 Alger Hiss, an American Communist, Andrei Gromyko, a Russian emissary, and Gladwyn Jebb, who helped set up the United Nations and served as temporary Secretary General until the first Sec/Gen was named.
 McCarthy, Joseph R., America’s Retreat from Victory, The Devin-Adair Company, NY, 1954. p 5.
 West, Diana, American Betrayal, St. Martin Press, NY, 2013, pp 320-321.
Kathleen Marquardt has been an advocate for property rights and freedom for decades. While not intending to be an activist, she has become a leader and an avid supporter of constitutional rights, promoter of civility, sound science, and reason. She serves as Vice President of American Policy Center. Kathleen now writes and speaks on Agenda21/2030, and its threat to our culture and our system of representative government.