Miscellaneous

Happily, Americans live on an island, sharing it with our Canadian and Mexican friends.  Just because North America is continental does not make us less insular.  We are blessed to reside in “This fortress built by Nature for herself.”

As island dwellers we are naturally secure. Unlike the majority of humanity which occupies Eurasia, we have no neighbors which pose any sort of threat to us.  We are therefor a peaceful people, with a powerful aversion to foreign wars.  Since Washington, we have sought to avoid foreign entanglements.

Island nations must control the seas for their security, so when the Germans began unrestricted submarine warfare  in 1917, they forced us into a war we didn’t want.    We likewise did not want to fight in World War II.  It took Pearl Harbor to get us into it.  We did not want to fight the Cold War.  But when an island nation is threatened by a hostile potential world hegemon, it must resist, just as the British resisted Napoleon.

With our English speaking cousins, the fellow island dwellers of Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, we are the backbone of freedom in this world.  And we find ourselves in the curious position as the security guarantor of Israel, which lives in a violent and unstable region.  For a complex set of reasons, the people of the United States have determined that they will not allow Israel to be destroyed.  Period.

Because of its oil, until now we’ve always had a strategic interest in the Middle East.  We live in an age of oil.  As Daniel Yergin shows  conclusively in his brilliant The Prize, “Energy is the basis of industrial society.”  As such, ever since WW I, energy security is national security.  Almost a hundred years ago, ten days after the Armistice, British Foreign Secretary Lord Curzon said, “The Allied cause floated to victory upon a wave of oil.”  It was oil, or the lack thereof, that brought the Nazis and Imperial Japan to their knees in WW II.

Because of our fracking revolution, we’ve recently discovered that our island is energy self sufficient.  We don’t need anybody’s oil, and that means we won’t fight anyone for oil.  The Middle East, and all of its oil, is a problem for Europe and Asia, but not for us.  Aside from Israel, this part of the world isn’t worth the life of one Nebraska paratrooper.  If Europe and Asia are cut off from Mideast oil, it could cause a worldwide economic recession, which would be a shame.  But we should not send our youth to fight and die in wars which are purely for economic interests.  That’s a job for mercenaries, not the American armed forces.

Bush 2 invaded Iraq ostensibly for weapons of mass destruction, but it was really a war for oil, and oil stability.  Now that that debacle is behind us, new apologists for intervention arise, telling us we must resist the expansion of Russian influence in the region, even going so far as to a call for no fly zones in the area.

Why?  Why is this in our vital national interests?  In case you haven’t been paying attention, Russia is now a Christian, not a communist nation.  It does not seek world hegemony.  Why are we afraid of an assertive Russia in this region?  Is it a threat to Israel?  Decidedly not.

When Donald Trump says let the Russians take on ISIS, he’s speaking for the American people.  They’ll be better at it than we would be, because they’re ruthless, brutal, and immune to “public opinion.”

Competitors in the Sheldon Adelson primary, such as Marco Rubio, are making a major and potentially costly mistake by beating their chests over the Middle East.  Adelson is a patriotic American and a patriotic Israeli all rolled into one.  But our interests are not Israel’s interests.  The American people, averse to war to begin with, and secure behind our oceanic defenses, will not tolerate another Middle East war.  A police action to destroy ISIS, in coordination, not opposition, to Russia, is certainly a possibility, as long as it does not include any form of nation building.

The next President needs a real reset with the Russians, and a whole new strategy in the Middle East.  But if a Presidential candidate is perceived as quick for war, they may pay a very high price.  The world of geopolitics is evolving in new directions, and it is a time for caution.

While men are not islands, nations are, and should act accordingly.

The previous post was by Bill Fruth, one of the original Task Force Co-Founders, and an indefatigable ambassador of the cause.  If we ever do get this done, no one, up to and including Lew Uhler, will deserve more credit than Bill.  He’ll be going to the Assembly of State Legislatures’ meeting in Salt Lake, along with Dave Biddulph and Hal Wick, to represent the Task Force as observers.  The legislators who share our commitment to one state, one vote, including Sen. Bill Cowsert of Georgia, will be there to advance our arguments.  This should turn out well.  Reasonable people can have their disagreements, argue and resolve them, and then move forward in unity.   This what we hope for and expect.

“Happily, Americans live on an island, sharing it with our Canadian and Mexican friends.  Just because North America is continental does not make us less isolated.  We are blessed to reside in “This fortress built by Nature for herself.”

As island dwellers we are naturally secure. Unlike the majority of humanity which occupies Eurasia, we have no neighbors which pose any sort of threat to us.  We are therefor a peaceful people, with a powerful aversion to foreign wars.  Since Washington, we have sought to avoid foreign entanglements.

Island nations must control the seas for their security, so when the Germans began unrestricted submarine in 1917, they forced us into a war we didn’t want.    We likewise did not want to fight in World War II.  It took Pearl Harbor to get us into it.  We did not want to fight the Cold War.  But when an island nation is threatened by a hostile potential world hegemon, it must resist, just as the British resisted Napoleon.”

The above paragraphs are from a piece I submitted to the American Thinker today.  I’ll link to the article if and when they put it up.

I wrote it in response to a Rubio ad I saw on Fox, put out by his Superpac.  It was well done, but completely wrongheaded.  It made him look like he’s Kennedy , ready to go forth and fight the Communists.  But Russia isn’t communist any more, and it is our competitor, not our enemy.  Vladimir (rhymes with redeemer) Putin is more of a Christian than Barack Hussein Obama, as far as I can tell.  This Superpac looks like it’s run by a bunch of neocons, or something, and they portray Rubio far too hawkishly.  This is dangerous ground.  The American people have had it with wars in the Middle East, and will not vote for someone who looks eager to get in another one.

I’m happy to see the attacks coming in on Rubio and Carson.  Put everything on the table up front.  Throw everything you’ve got at them. Come time for the general election, it’s all old stuff.   Trump put his finger on Carson’s real problem.  He asked O’Reilly, “Did you ever hit your mother?”  Carson says he tried to hit his mother with a hammer when he was a kid.  It shows how far he’s come, aided by his Christian faith.  I still find it disturbing.  So did Babbie, which means it’s important.

On a conference call today Fruth repeated his assertion that if the ASL comes out with rules that strictly adhere to the one state, one vote principal, we can get to 34 next year, and wrap this thing up.  He’s been at this longer than I have, and is more on top of the situation in our target states, so this is not just smoke.  It could happen.

It would be the start of really making America great again.

At a convention of the states to propose an amendment to the Constitution, the vote of a majority of the several states is sufficient to propose an amendment.

Some individuals preparing the rules for a convention of the states believe a vote of a super majority (34) of the states should be required in order to propose an amendment.

They base their argument on the premise that if the convention cannot get 2/3rds of the states to propose, then the amendment could not gain the required 3/4ths (38) to ratify.

The proponents assume a great deal regarding the amount of power and influence a handful of delegates at the convention have over how a legislature, which has yet to be elected, will vote on a proposed amendment.

The ratification process will extend at least seven years from when Congress returns it to the legislatures for ratification. During that period there are at least three election cycles.

No amendment has ever been ratified without the popular support of a large majority of the people. The people will determine if an amendment is ratified, not the current composition of a state legislature. The political composition of a legislature could change based upon the popularity of the amendment.

Additionally, the proponents also argue that if Congress needs 2/3rds to propose, the Convention should be required to have 2/3rds to propose.

Forgotten in this argument is the fact the states have already met a 2/3rds threshold through the arduous process of securing 2/3rds (34) of the states to pass a resolution to convene the convention. This process required at least 138 affirmative votes for the amendment subject which includes 68 committee votes and 68 floor votes.

To then require the convention to have a 2/3rds requirement to propose would be similar to requiring a state legislature to have a 3/4ths majority in both houses to ratify an amendment, as the Constitution requires 3/4ths of the states to ratify an amendment. In almost every state, a simple majority is required.

Requiring a greater vote than a majority of the states (26) at a convention will likely result in either a very weak amendment being proposed which would prevent it from being ratified or a deadlocked convention.

Should a majority of the states settle on the language of an amendment and there is a requirement to have the support of more states, the minority will then control the amendment language. This will cause a dilution in the “quality of the amendment.”

The further away the threshold of states to propose is from a majority, the greater the influence of the minority, as for each state needed above the majority, each additional state will place its demands upon the language.

This will eventually cause the amendment language to be far from the will of the majority which will result in proposing an amendment which the majority will not support during ratification or a deadlocked convention if the minority refuses to participate.

The issue of whether an amendment will be ratified rests with the “quality” of the amendment and not its perceived ability to be ratified at the time it is proposed. The people will examine the amendment and determine if it has merit.

William H. Fruth

National Co-Founder, Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force

A year ago John Kasich decided to fly around the country and campaign for the Article V BBA.  He even named his private jet “Balanced Budget Forever”.  He didn’t reach out to the Task Force, but Fruth went to Columbus and explained to Kasich’s staff what we were doing.  They realized we were the people to work with,  and we coordinated our efforts until recently, when he started concentrating exclusively on his Presidential campaign.

There are two distinct if related parts of our campaign: 1) the Balanced Budget Amendment and 2)  the use of Article V to achieve it.  Kasich was all in on the BBA.  But he seemed ambivalent about Article V.  He just wanted to use it to pressure Congress into passing a BBA itself.

I think Kasich’s plenty smart, so what this means to me is that he’s an elitist.  Either that or he has a complete lack of imagination.  He’d rather have Congress write a BBA than an Amendment Convention.  He doesn’t completely trust a Convention.  He trusts Congress more.  He either doesn’t like or doesn’t understand Article V, so he’s never promoted it.  He’ll talk all day about the need for a BBA.  He has never, to my knowledge, explained to people how Article V works, and praise it as the ultimate safeguard of our liberty.

Based on my experience explaining Article V to people, it’s a very attractive proposition, politically.  Everybody, and I mean everybody, hates Congress.  It’s corrupt beyond redemption.  The federal government is viewed by half the people in this country as the greatest threat to their freedom.  We’re $19 trillion in the hole, but they party on.  When you explain to people that the States, under Article V, have the power to amend the Constitution without Congress being involved, they go, “Really?”  And then you say we’re getting close to passing a BBA this way, they’re amazed.  “You can do that?”

When I got started on this two years ago I explained what I was doing to my granddaughter.  She was nine.  She understood, and she’s not a prodigy.  This is an issue to run on.  It’s really not hard to explain.  And we’re not a bunch of crackpots.  We’ve got 27 states, and a clean shot at 34 next year.

People like hearing about Article V.  A lot of them realize how farsighted the Framers were when they included it.  For a Republican, running for President, right now, this is one to run on.  Kasich has chosen not to do so.  The ball is lying on the ground.  All someone needs to do is pick it up and run with it.

Because Article V is all about federalism, and federalism is all about tolerance.  The people of California can have the most pro-choice laws in the country, as far as I’m concerned.  Just as long as they let the people of South Dakota have their pro-life laws.  Toleration, federalism.  Live and let live.  We’re a big and very diverse country.  Why don’t we just leave each other alone?

I think a lot of people would like to be left alone.  By the government, especially.  A republican candidate should talk about that, about how we’re losing our privacy.  Rand Paul did it,  but somebody else needs to carry that torch.

Is an Article V Convention a pipe dream?  50 years ago when I got into politics we were all in on the Captive Nations Amendment.  The Baltic States, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, were taken by Stalin in WW II, and we didn’t think this should be accepted.  This was 1965.  A quarter century later the Captive Nations were free and independent.

Big things do happen.

The 7,000 or so state legislators in this country have a power, and a responsibility, that most of them neglect.  The Framers of the Constitution selected this body of elected officials as the ultimate defenders of our liberties.  The power granted them by Article V is virtually limitless.  They could, if they so chose, return this country to the Constitution, or even write a new one.

This neglect is the result of ignorance.  State legislators don’t even know they have this power.  When they realize its extent, many of them get nervous.  They revere the Constitution and the men who wrote it.  They know that our current political class, including themselves, cannot bear comparison with the Framers.  The magnitude of the power cries out for caution.

Especially because Article V has never been used.  What would a Convention look like?  How would it function?  What rules would it operate under?  How would voting be conducted?

In order to address these concerns 100 or so state legislators met in Mt. Vernon almost two years ago, and under the title the Assembly of State Legislatures has met twice since.  On Wednesday in Salt Lake they meet again to consider adoption of a set of Proposed Rules for the Convention.  30-35 states may be represented.  It is expected that final action on the Proposed Rules will take place at this meeting.

The ASL’s executive committee has a proposal which will be considered first.  Unfortunately, it contains provisions which require supermajorities for actions to be taken.  This is in violation of the absolute one state, one vote principal which has been the operating assumption of everyone I’m aware of in the Article V movement, from Lew Uhler on down, for the last 35 years.

The leadership of the Idaho and Wyoming legislatures will be in attendance.  If this supermajority rule is adopted, it is highly unlikely that we’ll get through either state.  It’s that important.

On the other hand, if a set of rules is adopted which is strictly one state, one vote we have a political winner.  We can go to our target states, explain all the work which has been done by the Assembly of State Legislatures, and present them with the Proposed Convention Rules.  Believe me, this will help.  Fruth thinks this will get us to 34, but then he’s prone to bouts of wild enthusiasm.   If we get this set of rules, hats off to the ASL for a big, important job well done.

Ever on the prowl for contrary indicators I read a piece from the Guardian by deep thinking Democrat Stanley Greenberg.  This guy’s as old as I am, and has been thinking deeply for a long time.  He’s a hard core partisan, so I want to hear what he’s got to say.  Demographics.   That’s it.

People, I’m telling you, that’s all they’ve got.

And then I run across a piece by Matthew Iglesias at Vox  which is right on the money.  This guy gets it, and he’s a lefty, I believe.  The Democrats are just flat out screwed.  It’s amazing.

Social issues are supposed to hurt us.  That’s questionable on gay marriage, but not on transgendered rights.  On that issue, and it’s the hot one right now, we’re on the right side.  The motto is real simple  “No confused men in women’s bathrooms.”

What’s wrong with these people?  The whole thing is crazy.  It’s hard to figure out what’s going on in the left right now.  They keep getting nuttier and nuttier.  What’s causing this?  Do they think that this is as far as they’re going to get, that they are at the peak of their power, and they have to use it while they’ve got it?  Or is it somehow like the madness of crowds?  It’s disturbing.

Politically, though, it only strengthens the tide.