Sounds like the preparation for a false flag even to me. It’s been proven over and over they don’t care about anyone but themselves so there has to be some ulterior motive that benefits them in some way in this.
The liberals always tell you what they are going to do if you pay close enough attention because they have to look like they are being benevolent in taking away your freedoms.
Too many “coincidences” happening all at one time here to be coincidence.
Time too loosen the straps of that tin foil hat. They are cutting off the circulation to your brain.
Deagel.com, a website affiliated with the US Government, published their new population forecast for the year 2025. This new "forecast" for the US, shows a 78.2% drop in US population, from 319 million people in 2014, down to 65 million people in 2025.
No explanation given for this drastic reduction in US population.
[-3] April 18, 2015 at 8:21pm
There is right and wrong, not just LAW. Just because something is a “LAW” does not make it right, just, or constitutional either for that matter.
The RIGHT thing for the LEO to do would have been to take the flag and tell everyone to leave the area. They should have stopped what was going on instead of condoning it by their actions.
Regardless of the consequences, they should have stopped the desecration of the flag.
Frankly, I don’t care what the supremes say about what can be done with the flag. They too have forgotten who they work for.
So “technically” speaking, she was right and they were wrong.
 April 16, 2015 at 10:19pm
When we stop supporting the right to associate with whomever we choose we’re done. Our pathway to slavery is then complete.
I couldn’t care less who you sleep with in your own bedroom but you force it into my life and then I care and will fight it. This guy is saying the same thing.
He said OPENLY gay he would not provide service to. In other words keep your personal life personal and you have no problem with this man and most anyone else for that matter.
It’s way past time we stand up for these bullies. They want to slap us in the face, return the favor. Stand toe to toe and never back down. I expect most will turn tail and run once faced with someone with real backbone. If not that is their choice and I respect that. Hopefully they are prepared for the consequences of their actions.
It’s time we begin to gather together to protect each other from their threats even though most are just hot air. If necessary to stand armed guard to protect each other from these violent crazies.
Yet we’re the bad guys for merely wanting to be left alone to live our lives as we see fit and to allow them to do the same. It’s pure insanity.
And what, in your opinion, constitutes ‘openly’ gay? Do you seriously think that people walk into the mechanic’s and say “Hi there, Silly! I’m totally gay and I need you to give me a tune up! Also, I need my car serviced! Wink wink! Woohoo girlfriend!” No, ‘openly’ gay to a bigot like this means you talk with a lisp, or your voice is too feminine, or your hair is too nicely coiffed, et cetera. Nobody is showing up to Meineke mid-coitus, so you have know way of knowing their sexual orientation.
"But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."
And for those of you who are just dying to scream homophobe at him, please note that he ALSO said (and I quote) "Dishonesty, thievery, immoral behavior, etc. will not be welcomed at MY place of business."
 March 31, 2015 at 8:17pm
So because something we think is bad might happen we don’t enforce the law of the land.
If there is no law applied to the highest office in the land there should be no law applied to any of us below that office because the rule of law no longer exists. It is merely whatever we say it is whenever we want and whatever we want.
It’s really that simple. Either the law applies to all or it applies to none you can’t pick and choose. If you do, it is no longer the rule of law but the rule of man. Who you are or who you know.
Blind justice is officially dead.
 March 27, 2015 at 8:36pm
Politicians who only are out for one thing, power over us.
Do you remember in your lifetime government getting smaller to any significant extent?
They will never, EVER do anything to reduce their power unless forced by us to do so and WE will not be running ANY convention, no matter what it’s called, con-con, article V, constitutional convention, etc. THEY will be running it.
 March 27, 2015 at 8:29pm
Personally, I think a much better way to get something really accomplished, rather than trusting our future to a situation we don’t know we can control, is to do this through our States directly.
We all need to begin pushing our State governments to simply withdraw their consent to the feral government. As the old saying goes, just say NO. No, we won’t do this or that as the situation arises.
No, we won’t send you those tax dollars to waste on that.
No, we won’t implement that in our schools.
No, we won’t follow what your courts say if it is wrong for our State.
No, we won’t continue to be a part of this union if you don’t leave us alone. You’ve broken the contract we wrote when we established you, the federal government. Since WE made you, we can make you go away if we choose.
THAT is how this should be dealt with. From a position of power, not a position of cowering and hoping things work out.
A bully only responds to one thing and that is not weakness but strength.
What you are suggesting is just a hair short of secession. That was tried in 1860 when the first state, South Carolina, seceded from the union and sparked the civil war. Since Lincoln's response was to mend the union through force the precedent of using force has been established and upheld. If secession is tried again then it will spark an armed conflict. There is no denying that at this point. Is that what you want? I will concede that the fear of a convention being subverted for nefarious means is a legitimate concern. But the chance of it happening is slim. The chance of armed conflict resulting from a failed, or misguided, convention is small. Whereas your path, according to history, is a sure path to armed conflict and rebellion. I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with your tactic. The founders laid out a path for the people to reign in the government if it ever came to it. The second provision of amending the constitution is that tool given to us by the founders. They would not have given it to us if they didn't intend for us to use it at some point in our nations history.
[-2] March 27, 2015 at 8:18pm
It’s basically whatever you want it to mean.
Really. That’s the truth since there is no “Constitutional” definition of it, it is just whatever the “system” decided the meaning is.
You could interpret things one way and I could interpret them another. Who is to say which is correct?
It boils down to whoever is in power at the moment the definition is needed and if that definition fits their purpose at that particular time.
That in a nutshell is what the whole problem with this situation is. There are no set standards because this has never happened in the history of this Country. The closest example we have is the first convention which was called to AMMEND the Articles of Confederation. Just ammend it, not rewrite it.
However, that is exactly what they did, they threw it out and started over.
In an ideal world, where the Constitution is read and interpreted as it is written and not twisted to mean whatever the powers that be NEED it to mean at the time, maybe Article V COULD be interpreted to be restrictive in some way.
But in a time in our history when “shall not be infringed” is misinterpreted. You choose for yourself if you are willing to trust the process to those currently in power.
It's not about D.C. It's about the people in the States taking back their power from D.C. through their States legislatures.
Article 5 of the constitution is where it’s spelled out.
Mark Levin’s “Liberty Amendments” discusses the process in detail and also offers some excellent possible amendments to consider. The process bypasses the congress, the executive branch, and the judiciary and is entirely (except for setting the time and place) in the hands of the states. Any amendments proposed MUST BE RATIFIED by 3/4ths of the states to be put into the constitution. Once that’s done, it’s part of the constitution.
Personally, I think to just limit the convention to balanced budget amendment would be wasting an excellent opportunity to consider other measures that congress will never impose on itself (term limits) or a return to state appointed federal senators, thereby putting a stop to senators like John McCain, who regularly votes against his own state’s wishes with no repercussions. Term limits for supreme court justices is an idea well worth looking at also.
The need for approval by the states would be the guard against any runaway shenanigans.
 March 27, 2015 at 7:06pm
No where in Article V does it say the States run the convention. They merely place the request and Congress calls it. From that point there is NO law set as to how it’s conducted.
It’s all speculation at this point and that IS the problem.
ANYTHING left to interpretation by lawyers and politicians is not going to end well for us.
I would suggest you read the Founders and history and pay attention to human nature. Mark Levin wants to sell books and speaking engagements. He has something to gain by this, the Founders and history do not.
[-1] March 27, 2015 at 7:03pm
Just where in the Constitution is there any definition of what is or is not a “Constitutional Convention”?
In fact, where in our law anywhere is that definition? Other than from the pundits and the ones pushing for a convention, there is no definition that I’m aware of.
So who is to determine exactly what a convention means and how it’s conducted since there is no predetermined or predesigned template?
Politicians, that’s who. The same ones that have gotten us where we are today.
Even many of the Founders recommended against having another convention at any point in the future if we wanted to hold on to what we have. There’s got to be a good reason for that.
Maybe it was that, in their wisdom, they knew that once the Country was established and the politicians were entrenched that they would NEVER do anything that would take away ANY of their power. That the only thing they would do in another convention would be to take more from us and give more to them.
Which is exactly why Madison stood up on the day, or several days, before the Constitution was adopted and pushed for the second way to amend the Constitution that is in Article 5. He also did not trust corrupt politicians to restrict there own power and wanted an option for the states to amend the Constitution, independent of Washington, to reclaim power back from Washington.
From the article : http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/articleV.htm ::
"...Because any amendment can be blocked by a mere thirteen states withholding approval (in either of their two houses), amendments don’t come easy. In fact, only 27 amendments have been ratified since the Constitution became effective...."
Whether amendments are proposed by Congress, or by an Art V action, they STILL have to be ratified by 3/4 of the States. If our populace is so far gone that they would ratify a really bad amendment, we’re so far beyond quibbling over ‘definitions’ that we are already doomed.
Living with the status quo is unacceptable. So, other than ignoring the issue, what suggestion(s) would you have.
ITS ARTCLE V
Look it up and read about it. Its is a solution to the question of how a Free people can reform a Government that refuses to be reformed and want to keep everything like it is.
 March 27, 2015 at 6:52pm
Exactly my point. Thank you for making it for me.
They are not paying attention to the current Constitution. They are not following it at all.
What in the world makes anyone think they will follow the “law” pertaining to a convention no matter what it’s called or who calls it. Once they are there and the ball is rolling, do you really think they will feel constrained by anything?
Who says the method of approval will remain the same? What is to stop them from changing that? The Constitution? Really? Like it stopped them from taking all the freedoms and liberties we’ve already lost?
Hopefully you are not that naive.
The first convention was not called as a “constitutional convention” either. It was called for the purpose of merely amending the Articles of Confederation and they ended up writing a whole new Constitution so how can we say it can’t or won’t be done.
 March 27, 2015 at 6:41pm
Are you sure?
What proof do you have?
Are you really willing to bet your Country on politicians telling you the truth about this?
Remember the closest situation we have to this was the first Convention that was called for the purpose of AMENDING the Articles of Confederation. We all know how that turned out as we have our current Constitution to show for it.
If you are wrong what are you then willing to do about it?
While you are correct in some respects Lordchamp, at this point what other alternative do we have short of open rebellion? None. Washington DC is broken friend. They have completely lost control in terms of taxation and spending. It’s up to the states now to set things right. Our founding father’s knew a day like today would arrive and gave us, the people, the tools to make things right. Quite honestly I believe most of the founding fathers would be surprised that we lasted this long without calling a convention or killing ourselves outright. (we nearly did during the civil war) As for what happens if the convention is hijacked by special interests and powers on either side? We’ll cross that bridge when we get there. Until then… this is the only tool we have left.
kkik is correct, Lordchamp
Article V of the Constitution:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof . . . .
The Framers knew what they were doing.
Note: 20 years ago, my thoughts were EXACTLY as yours are now on this subject.
 March 27, 2015 at 6:36pm
One question for all those who think a convention s a good idea, disregarding that the last convention we had completely changed the existing Constitution, the Articles of Confederation.
What if we’re right about the convention being hijacked, what are you prepared to do then?
Give that some serious thought because the choices are slim. You will either allow them to continue and rewrite the Constitution or rise up and physically stop them by force of arms.
Those really are the only two choices because the changes that will be made most certainly will not be to give us more freedom.
So think long and hard before you think this is a good idea and if you do you better get your affairs in order because it will not turn out good.
Do you REALLY trust ANY politician or political process in today’s America to do anything to actually IMPROVE our freedoms and liberties?
Its a convention of the states to propose amendments to the Constitution. Not a Constitutional Convention to open the entire document up for a rewrite which is why the headline is misleading. Any amendments would have to be approved by 3/4 of the states. If 38 states approve bad amendments, then its over anyways.
By the way, what do you think is going on now. The Constitution is being rewritten by the courts and ignored by the executive and legislative branch now, without the benefit of state ratification.
I agree. you people are lemmings to fall for the budget thing. They just want to open it up and then both sides will show their true colors. Rhinos and liberals alike. If this happens, you can kiss the constitution good bye.......
what are you talking about hijack .. by who
It takes 3/4 of the states to approve of an amendment. That's a big hurdle particularly since many states aren't likely to attend the convention. So those states would be deciding to approve something they had no input on. Which is why I would recommend trying to term limits first. The Congress would never vote that for themselves, but it might be possible to get 3/4 of the states to agree.
Plus how could something be hijacked? Every state gets to set the rules for their delegation so they can specify that the delegation can only discuss and vote on a specific type of amendment, or put other restrictions. The only way their vote counts is if they are the legitimately appointed representatives of a state. If they go rogue, the state can just yank the authorization.
I totally agree with Lordchamp. We don't want this bunch of Libs and RINOs messing with the Constitution. In 1913 we amended the Constitution. The 16th created federal income tax. The 17th changed the way Senators came into office. Prior to 1913 the state legislature appointed the Senators to represent state issues at the federal level. The state legislature also had the ability to remove a Senator if the state's interests was not being protected. Now Senators no longer represent their state nor ensure state's rights are considered and maintained. Today, there is no accountability. These two amendments led to the massive tax and spend mess we have today.
The current Balanced Budget Amendment allows Congress to raise taxes to meet any deficit spending. So you thing taxes are high now...
We don't need an Amendment to achieve balanced budget legislation. We only need Representatives and Senators who will represent us instead of big business, their party and themselves. Which is easier: To pass legislation with a simple majority of the House and Senate, or pass an Amendment with 2/3's the House and Senate and 3/4's the states??
Those who want a Constitutional Convention, be careful what you ask for, because you might just get it. And chances are we will lose much of our 1st Amendment rights and ALL of our 2nd Amendment rights.
 March 25, 2015 at 12:28pm
Every single one of those industries is consumption.
NO production. No making of “things”. That means no exports and total dependancy on others instead of having others dependant on us and our products. No manufacturing means you can’t support yourself properly as a Country. It also means lower pay which translates into lower lifestyle.
Walmart/ChinaMart, the new American dream job.
Says a lot for who we have become and yet still are becoming.
 March 23, 2015 at 1:08pm
“…praying with her to accept Jesus, an act that orthodox believers undertake to become official followers of Christ.”
Not sure who initiated this statement, the Blaze or others but I must remind them that personal acceptance of Jesus Christ and repentance of your personal sins is the ONLY way to salvation according to the Bible. “Orthodox” or not, whatever they mean by that anyways, there is only one way to salvation, regardless of what the humanist and others promote.
Me thinks the Blaze is quicking becoming more and more “politically correct” and in fact I see some signs of moving even away from conservative principles and this is very disturbing. It seems the money is becoming more important than the principles.
Statements like this are totally unneeded unless you are attempting to cater to those on the left that are generally not part of us “clinging to our guns and religion”.
Maybe it has to do with a Mormon owning this website.
I thought that statement was sort of odd. You cleared it up though. Yes, Jesus Christ is the ONLY Way. That will disappoint many.
 March 17, 2015 at 1:54pm
The last comment in the article is EXACTLY the problem here. There is no way to discipline these people so there is no fear of discipline. They can do anything they want and get away with it with nothing more than a smack on the hand, if even that.
No rule of law, no discipline, no enforced standards, no morals, no ethics.
 January 6, 2015 at 2:51pm
At the end of those two years, based on the past, where do you really think we will be?
Let’s see, we have the same leadership that has done absolutely nothing the entire time obama has been in office to stop things to this point so what REALLY do you expect them to do now?
I truly hope you are not that naive but unfortunately I expect you are.
That is why they will continue with exactly what they have done in the past, anything that benefits themselves and securring their futures and power. They will GROW the feral government just like they have in the past.
Because people will not get past their naive feelings that politicians in this government will ever do anything for anyone other than themselves, the status quo will continue.
Our representative American Republic is dead, not dying, DEAD. The sooner that is accepted, the sooner the bones can be swept away and replaced.
You better be focusing on your State and local governments and making sure they are strong enough to fight what is coming.
You are one of the only people on here who understand what just happened. This is bad. Real bad. We are now living in a post election, & post constitutional state. They have found a way to make the people & elections irrelevant. There will be some cosmetic changes to fool the masses, & try to keep us from hanging them on the mall until the takeover is complete.
 January 6, 2015 at 2:34pm
If anyone have any doubts that national politics is a dead game to all of us outside of washington you should finally, once and for all have you answer.
We do not matter and what we think and say does not matter.
We are the little people, the ruled. They are the elite, the RULERS. They don’t have to listen, they know best. They ARE the best.
Anyone with ANY remaining small hope of changing anything in washington through the ballot box should officially cast that aside and save those energies for something productive, like picking your nose.
You would accomplish more doing that than working to affect anything in washington.
So what to do now?
Withdraw consent, withdraw funds, withdraw energies, withdraw actions. Withdraw anything that does anything to feed the beast that is washington and the feral government.
No funds to ANY national political candidate. Do not support them with time, money, or actions in any way. Do not support companies that support them. Starve them and starve the government. It’s all about money and power, take away the money and they lose power.
What choice do you have other than continuing the insanity.
This would absolutely work in a very short amount of time.
It will never happen, however.
 December 22, 2014 at 2:21pm
I am SICK of this humanistic, liberal, yes LIBERAL, crap. All the feel good, touchy feely, emotion tweaking garbage. It’s just more liberal propaganda like what is spewed in the public indoctrination centers known as public schools.
There is very little biblical basis to most of what these people spew.
I can almost guarantee that if this man went into his church and preached a sermon on sin and salvation only though belief and acceptance of Jesus Christ as your personal savior or you are going to hell, he would be run out of the church.
He is no better than the race baiters like sharpton and jackson. It accomplishes the same thing. Rather than teaching people how to pull themselves up they give them more reasons to be victims.
 December 21, 2014 at 9:51pm
OK let’s try something that is in short supply when it comes to government. Applying common sense.
The FBI says it’s North Korea and we’re supposed to believe them. Like no one in government EVER lies to us these days. Aside from that let’s think this through.
I’m a country that wants to attack another country electronicly or any way for that matter. I have a particular target in mind that I want to hit. Let’s say communications as an example. I plan it and know how I’m going to execute it.
However, before I excute that plan I decide I am going to attack some random, large, very visible company as a dry run just to make sure my plan will work.
Surely no one will notice and think that it’s me doing it so I can then proceed with my main plan to attack the communications system.
Does that make ANY sense to you? Can you really believe that ANY country would make such a stupid, blatant, stategic mistake? REALLY?
Even North Korea would not do something that stupid but yet the FBI, OUR government expects us to believe them and buy this crap.
This smells to high heaven like a setup of either US, the American people, yet again, or the North Korean, just like Iraq was setup in the 90′s.
The government wants a war, ANY war, ANYWHERE, they don’t care, they just need the cover and distraction.
This is not about starting a war. It’s about taking control of the internet. It’s the only source where people can get ALL sides to every issue. If the government can control the internet and keep you ignorant, they can control you.