Dear Readers, Are you getting tired of the back-and-forth smear campaigns of opposing forces that obviously disagree? I feel more like the guy in the photo every day, don't you?
It should be apparent to you by now that there are people in two different camps that disagree on issues, right? Likewise, and concerning would you also say that Idaho, overall, is in worse shape than we have ever been and that the people in the state are more divided than ever? I mean we aren’t even talking democrats and republicans here; we are talking about two “conservative” groups taking opposite positions and on trivialities no less.
If what I am saying is true and you already know and see the division, would it be okay to say that division doesn’t necessarily come from the two warring factions, as much as it may be those that have bought into one side of another? It should also concern you that you can tell a lot about people by whether they push you to support or oppose a person rather than an issue. If they do push on the issue, they usually use people to help justify their position. Why do you think they do this? I believe it is because one side wants to win so badly, they will use everything they can but the one thing you all deserve aren’t opinions and ad hominem's , you deserve the facts from either or both perspectives and no decision should be made without this information. I think these people pushing that hard think you are stupid. Have I not provided thoughts that make my point? The media is a perfect example of speaking once side, agitiating and creating division. There is no solution if we don't get out of this.
As I always say, I am not interested in using people to make my case, I don’t have to because I not only have the truth and the ability to defend it, more importantly, I don’t "play the man," I play the issue and I believe to a great degree that America is in trouble for these same reasons. People don’t focus on facts; they focus on idols. If you want to restore liberty, STOP PLAYING THE MAN!
Allow me to explain, as I need to over and over and over again because people still don’t seem to be listening clearly enough or I am still not explaining things well enough.
Unlike previous op-eds where people just rip into the other “man,” I can appreciate Eric’s respect showing his appreciation for Moon’s willingness to volunteer. The sad part is that he was disappointed about Moon’s position on Article 5. If he supports a convention, he should be disappointed but, in my view, if he knew issue better, had a degree of knowledge of the constitution and had a consistent worldview, he would most likely agree with her. He would at the very least be armed with understanding both sides of the issues that most that support a convention do not. What's worse is that he was elected by his constituency that shows the level of knowledge they possess or how much they care about issues.
Why Moon’s position bothers Redmon as Moon’s position as GOP party chair escapes me, unless he thinks that Article 5 in our constitution is just merely a trivial political position. It isn’t. Does Redmon lack the reverence for our founding document and look at constitutional issues as he does the party platform, as a living breathing platform? It would seem that he would from what he says.
Why would Redmon care if there is a resolution in the GOP platform for or against a convention when most legislators don’t adhere to the platform anyway? Why would it matter what is written in it unless there is something else driving him to push so hard? What would Redmon have said if the platform already had a resolution in it that already stated opposition? Would He support the platform then? Most likely not, he would try to change it. So, in that regard would he be any different than Moon in that each of them have taken a position and desired to state that position in the party platform?
The difference, I think that bothers people is that Moon is sharp, and she may well intimidate other men and men hate women that intimidate them. The other reason may be that she is well educated overall, especially on this issue, and can defend or oppose any position she makes (without me or anyone else defending her.) Can we say the same for others condemning her? The most important thing is that from what I know of Moon, She cares about our Constitution and desires to not only understand it but defend it especially when those that took the oath aren't and are so willing to support an issue that is clearly a bastardization of our Founder’s intent. We won't consider Redmon's Freedom Index scores or his positions on issues but if truth be told, you can tell a politician on how they vote. Is his record consistent with his desire to take an informed position on the issue?
Redmon goes on to say that the National platform had a BBA. Does he not realize that a BBA is not necessary or understand the dangers if one passes? (I have a list, if you would like to see it.) Redmon also stated that the national platform also had a term limits amendment. Does Redmon feel like because a national platform had something in it, it is a good thing and shouldn’t be changed considering that platforms are changed so often? Imagine his position if he supported a BBA and Term Limits and the national platform opposed them both? What position would Redmon take then? Is his position a bit hypocritical?
To make matters worse, Redmon goes on and on about the party platform without realizing there is a War for the Soul of Humanity not only for this state, this nation and the globe. Is the party platform where you want your legislators hanging their hat when their allegiance was to support and defend the constitution, not the party platform?
Ok, If What I have written doesn’t get you thinking, let’s try this… I have heard that it takes 18 seconds, on average, for a legislator to take a position on an issue. Even if it took longer, they still don’t take the time necessary on complex topics and thus why we are where we are in this country.
Redmon wants you to believe that thousands of constituents have signed petitions for legislators to “pass an Article 5 Convention of States Resolution to propose Amendments” and so he will appeal to those that can’t see what he says… and it is important to realize sleight of hand and a little truth mixed with a lie wins over the ignorant because they don’t know better. No offense, we can’t all know everything, but we should reach out to those that study a given topic for consideration. It is also important to know that when resolutions and laws are passed, they can also be rescinded and many have been, so where is he on his argument now? "The Democratic mob rule majority has spoken!" Uh, in our republic?
First of all, an Article 5 convention was created by our Founders and placed in the constitution, but no one asks why. COS came up with the idea that it was placed there to reign in an out-of-control government but there is no evidence of this. There is however overwhelming evidence that proves the Founders placed it there to “fix errors.” There is a big difference. When asking anyone that supports of opposses the convention Idea whether they think the constitution is the problem, most say, it isn't. can they not see the hypocricy of what they just said? they just said thre constitution isn't the problem...and now knowing this, people want to change it? Lunacy anyone?
This may be a bad example so I hope you get it but, would you use transmission fluid in your car to replace your engine oil? Using something because it is there doesn’t mean we were supposed to use it any way we want to! The Founders were very specific on how the constitutional provisions were to be used and misapplying them is reckless and dangerous and so are the people that advocate for it.
Secondly, Redmon ignorantly or otherwise states “Article 5 Convention of States Resolution” and is most likely banking on the fact that you won’t question this assertion. It’s okay, I will.
You see COS prides itself in saying (depending on the day) that COS isn’t an Article 5 convention. WHAT? Yep! They say it is different, it is a Convention of States. Did you know that a Convention of States is nowhere in Article 5? Next time you see Eric ask him where the phrase Convention of States came from, if he is an expert on this topic, he would be able to tell you. Most don’t consider me an expert and yet I know. Simply, whether it is an Article 5 convention or not, COS is advocating the use of Article 5 and the process in Article 5 to call for a convention so you can call it “rainbows and bubble gum, but it still Article 5.
Another important thing to know is that Redmon seems to bank on the fact that a Convention can be limited like COS says it can. The problem is that there are no such limitations in Article 5 so where are such limitations cited when Robert Natelson, one of the brain trusts for COS says that conventions when called are AUTONOMOUS STAND-ALONE DELIBERATIVE bodies? This means what once a convention is called, they operate on their own WITHIN THE PARAMETERS SET BY CONGRESS. There was even a quote from Yale law recently citing that Congress should throw out such applications.
Then Redmon comes in for the attempted and perceived “character assault” and mentions Moon’s husband being on the board of JBS. (Old, tired, regurgitated and easily refuted smears). Clearly this isn’t mentioned just to mention it, because Redmon, once again is banking on appealing to the ignorant believing that people still believe the Communist smears about JBS in the 1960’s that have been refuted time and time again. How long are the ignorant masses going to believe and propagate communist propaganda? Would you like to see the evidence? I have that too.
Just because JBS opposes a convention does not mean he is speaking on behalf of JBS any more than Redmon’s support of COS. Is Redmon saying that we shouldn’t think critically for ourselves based on the information we review, and we should trust organizations instead as "experts?" Clearly, he believes this because I will venture to guess he isn’t aware of the issue to the degree Moon’s husband is so maybe we should ask Redmon if facts matter at all anymore?
Simply stated, taking the right position constitutionally is not representing an organization or we could accuse Redmon of proselytizing for COS. Can he not see such a glaring inconsistency?
I do overall appreciate Eric’s ability to speak more substantively than just ripping people like COS’s Haldorson did a day or so ago because regardless of position, dialogue on such an important issue should be considered on its merits not just demeaning another’s character.
It would do every American to know that like JBS or not, to finally review who and what JBS is, don’t listen to what someone told you, do it yourself! Also, it would be good for you to know that in 66 years, JBS has never been on the wrong side of an issue and the evidence they possess is enough to prove it but you know like I do, some people don’t want to challenge everything they think or know and carry on the status quo. (sound familar?) Remember though, it is important for us to know that we make sure we are not only not narrow minded and more importantly we need to make sure people like that don’t get into office.
Finally, Redmon tries to end his opinion with an overview of the brilliance of the Founding Fathers and what they gave us. The problem is that if he knew enough about what he was saying, he would be questioning this issue as a matter of respect for them not just supporting an idea that has swayed emotional hearts and minds of people and “Liberty” organizations because they prefer to PLAY THE MAN or the organization and not the issue. the last thing to consider is this...if you so easily entrust your freedom to the hands of others, you may just not deserve the freedom you were given.
Let’s agree to attack the issue, not the man., Can we do that please?