JBS CEO Art Thompson’s weekly news video update for March 18 – 24, 2013.
In this week’s analysis behind the news video, JBS CEO Art Thompson discusses: Why the Electoral Vote is so important; the Cyprus Banking Crisis; New York City’s Sustainable Cities event; the changing definition of inflation; and a few thoughts on Pope Francis.
In this week’s news video update, JBS CEO Art Thompson discusses: Voter Fraud; “Coordinated” union protests across Europe; the Socialist Party (aka the Social Democrats) endorsed Obama; Change in Chinese leadership – the same old communists; UN interference in internal affairs; and Communist influences within the ACLU.
In this week’s video news update JBS CEO Art Thompson discusses: Arab unrest; voter fraud in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and reporters in collusion with revolutions and military extremists.
In this week’s video news update for September 10-16, 2012, JBS CEO Art Thompson discusses the history of voting and voter fraud, including public, secret and computerized voting throughout history.
In this weekly video news update for July 16 – 22, 2012, JBS CEO Art Thompson discusses: the communist factions behind the Mexican presidential election vote fight; an update on the forced-abortion case in China; a New York Times op-ed urges drafting women to serve in the military; how Russia has created an Internet blacklist to control the web.; the early history of the CIA and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR); and why we need to get ready for ever higher prices due to ongoing Federal Reserve inflationary actions.
In this weekly video news update for March 5-11, 2012, JBS CEO Art Thompson discusses voter fraud; the Communist and Nazi Salutes; the portrayal of Communists in Russia as the anti-Kremlin party and rural Communists in China as the anti-totalitarian partisans; and Eisenhower and his “anti-Communist” Interstate Highways.
In this weekly news update for January 23-29, 2012, JBS CEO Art Thompson discusses how increasing numbers of elderly people of America can’t retire because inflation is rapidly reducing the purchasing power of their fixed incomes; he also discusses the connection between Russia and its neighboring Islamic nations.
For decades Article V Convention promoters have long held that all of the applications applying for a convention have to be the same or worded very similar, in order for Congress to call a convention intended for that purpose. This means that there is one track or list for a specific convention. No single track has reached the required number of states, 34, for Congress to call a convention. This has made some longtime convention promoters very impatient, and they want to dispense with tradition.
At the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)’s 2020 annual summit, former Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker unveiled a plan. It would have states to sue Congress in order to utilize outdated state applications and unrelated Con-Con applications all for the express purpose of Congress calling a constitutional convention to propose a Balanced Budget Amendment.
David Biddulph, the co-founder of Let Us Vote for a BBA (Balanced Budget Amendment), also promoted the same scheme at the 2020 ALEC gathering. Biddulph proposed taking the then-28 active state resolutions seeking a Balanced Budget Amendment and combining them with six non-BBA Con-Con applications.
These extremely old Article V Convention applications, include:
Biddulph also recommended litigation to force Congress to call a convention. His plan proposes recruiting state attorneys general to file lawsuits demanding that Congress recognize that such a convention is long overdue, based on this dubious aggregation of different Con-Con applications. He stated,
“We think that the shortest path to actually getting a date for an Article V convention is through the Supreme Court,” he said. “That is definitely not through Congress.”
On March 14, 2023, Representative Jodey Arrington of Texas introduced House Concurrent Resolution 24 (of the 118th Congress). In which “Congress hereby calls a Convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States for a date and place to be determined on calling the Convention.”
These convention advocates claim the minimum number of states required for Congress to call a constitutional convention was already met.
According to the bill, “congressional and State records of plenary applications for amendments on any subject and applications for the single subject of Inflation-fighting Fiscal Responsibility Amendments compiled by the Article V Library counts Nevada’s “continuing” application, reported February 8, 1979, in the Congressional Record, as the 34th thus achieving the “two thirds” congressional mandate to call the Convention for proposing amendments; congressional records reported 39 applications by the end of 1979, 40 in 1983, and 42 total applications over time.”
Once again, they are inflating the numbers with unrelated/non-BBA Con-Con applications. Applications intended for a specific purpose ought not to be combined with applications for a general convention or unrelated purpose.
It’s imperative that we recognize these deceptive schemes and warn others about them in order to protect our Constitution and keep our Republic!
Learn more about Article V and the amendment process by visiting JBS.org.
In recent years, state legislators have been receiving boxes of petitions allegedly from constituents demanding a “Convention of States.” These petitions are computer generated with names and addresses. But fail to include any signatures, phone numbers, or email addresses to verify. There are many legislators who have called some of these people and asked if they support a Con-Con and have found that a large percentage of them say they never signed the petition and are NOT in favor of a convention. Likewise, the emails received by legislators are computer generated by the hundreds. Rarely do we receive a personal email from an actual constituent wanting a convention or articulating the supposed need for one. And if you don’t believe this, hear from a state representative herself. The following is an excerpt from then-Idaho state representative Dorothy Moon.
When I was leaving the Capitol in March, at the end of March, I went and got a big packet of petitions in my mailbox. And a couple of weeks into being home, I started going through some of these petitions and some of these letters. And it was interesting, I thought, “Huh? Convention of State Project, don’t tell me they’re going to do this again.”
Oh, yeah, they were going to do it again. So anyhow, “Representative Dorothy Moon, there were 141 online Convention of State petitions and 111 hard copies printed for you. So, you had 252 petitions that wanted you to support a Convention of States.” I thought, “really? Who are these people?” So, I started flipping through it. I’m looking for Salmon, Challis, the communities closest to me.
And all of a sudden, I find one that says this lady’s name and Challis. And I thought, “I know her. I know Tina. Why would Tina be signing this Convention of States petition?” So, I called her up. Now, mind you, there’s not a signature here. It is a typed name and a typed address. And I thought, “hmm.” I said, “Tina, I got the date. I’ve got a little post-it.”
I’m kind of weird like that. I mark when I call people and when I got the response. So, I called her, and I said, “Did you sign this?” She goes, “Dorothy, I’m a JBS member. Why would I sign it?” I said, “That’s exactly what I thought.”
Fraudulent, number one. Number two, here’s another one.
This is from a precinct committee person in Clayton, Idaho. 35 minutes from my house. “Paul, what are you doing signing this petition?” “What are you talking about, Dorothy? I never signed this petition.” I said, “Well, I know you didn’t. Your name is typed on there.”
Fraudulent, more fraud. There is another one. There were bunches of them. They never signed them.
So, what I think they do is they go through the voter rolls. They go to the Secretary of State’s website. They accumulate the names. They just put them on there. So, not only did I receive a packet full of names, so did every other legislator. There are 35 senators, and we have 70 House members. And so, we have a total of 105.
105 of them had a packet with probably a hundred names of people who were supposedly in support of a convention of states and if there’s fraud and deception on a handful that I pulled out of here, as far as I’m concerned, they’re all fraudulent. And these are the people who want us to trust them to go and get us into a convention of states in Article V.
No way. And that’s my argument. Whenever people ask me about it.
If this was happening in Idaho, you can be sure that it is happening still today in every state. Contact your legislators and tell them to be wary of the same fraud in your state.
Learn more about Article V and the amendment process by visiting JBS.org.
As we have previously covered, nullification is an effective tool to enforce the Constitution and rein in the federal government. But how can we stop federal spending?
States can use nullification to stop unconstitutional federal spending, just as they can use it to stop other federal usurpations.
One key way they can accomplish this is by enacting a “State Sovereignty and Federal Tax Funds Act,” also referred to as an “escrow bill.” Under it, federal taxes would first be sent to the state government. The state would then calculate the percentage of constitutional federal spending and send only that percentage of the funds to the federal government.
Since an estimated 80% of federal spending is unconstitutional, this bill would save taxpayers a significant amount of their hard-earned income, put heavy pressure on the federal government to cut its spending, and protect the states from financial federal retaliation.
This bill has been introduced in multiple states in previous years, including Georgia, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Washington. To get serious about countering federal usurpations, state legislators must enact this bill into law.
States can also nullify the Federal Reserve and its monopoly on monetary policy. The Federal Reserve’s ability to create money has encouraged Congress to engage in reckless spending.
Already, multiple states have enacted legislation doing so.
For example, multiple states have abolished taxes on precious metals such as gold and silver. While three have affirmed gold and silver as legal tender, thus encouraging their use in competition with Federal Reserve Notes, which are really nothing more than elastic fiat currency.
Meanwhile, Texas has taken the step of creating a state precious-metals depository, further reducing state dependence on the Fed.
However, state governments must go all the way by enforcing the Constitution’s Gold and Silver Clause (Article I, Section 10). If states can nullify the Fed, it will rein in federal spending. It will also stop rampant inflation.
As we’ve previously stated, it will not be easy to enact these measures; state governments will come under significant opposition, including from the federal government, the judiciary, media, big business, and others.
But for these nullification measures to succeed, state and local officials need to be bold and courageous. And if voters are both informed about nullification and made familiar with the Constitution, many will support nullification efforts.
Learn more about Article V and the amendment process by visiting JBS.org.
