5/27/90   HATONN

SAFETY CHECKS

Nonetheless, CRC (Continental Rip-Off Convention) supporters argue and prattle that there is a protective barrier of so-called safety checks surrounding a second CRC. They claim these are designed specifically to prevent a second convention from becoming such a "runaway convention".

But would they do the job? Take a look at the eight major "safety checks" the CRC forces are touting, in order to see how much or how little safety is actually provided:Safety Check #1: Once a convention has been called, Congress has been called, Congress can avoid it by acting on the balanced budget amendment itself.

NOT TRUE. Once 34 states call for the convention, Congress has no choice but to convene it according to the clear wording of Article V of the U.S. Constitution.Safety Check #2: Congress establishes the convention procedures, and can control the Convention in this manner.

NOT TRUE. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state how convention proceedings are to be determined, nor how the delegates are to be selected. Since formal convention proceedings are non-existent to date, how can a convention be controlled through them?Safety Check #3: The delegates would have a legal obligation to stay on the topic of a balanced budget.

NOT TRUE. Nowhere in the law, as it pertains to a CRC, can one find ANY legal obligation of delegates--NOWHERE!

Safety Check #4: The voting public would demand that a convention be limited.

NOT TRUE. Be realistic, for good or for bad, the voters have been demanding a balanced budget amendment for a long time. The same members of Congress who have ignored this plea would be in the position of selecting convention delegates, or having the delegates hand-picked from their districts. Voters would no more be able to influence these delegates than they influence their own Congressional reps right now that sell out to the foreign lobbies and take bribes on a regular and ongoing basis.Safety Check #5: Even if delegates did favor opening the convention to another issue, it is unlikely they would all favor opening it to the same issue.

TRUE! In fact, they would open the convention up to multitudes of issues and proposals already on the waiting lists. And the same kinds of shady political deals would occur then as they do every day in Washington, D.C., i.e., "You give me this, and I'll give you that." Now you tell me if there is truly safety for the hens to lock the fox in the hen-house? Congressmen foxes are "always hungry".Safety Check #6: Congress would have the power to refuse ratification of any additional amendment proposals.

Nowhere is this procedure clearly spelled out. Besides, if Congress were of a mind to limit a convention to the sole issue of a balanced budget amendment, why haven't they simply taken the issue up amongst themselves, and added the amendment to the Constitution the same way they added the other 16 amendments? BECAUSE IT IS NOT AT ISSUE--THEY WANT TO TAKE AWAY ALL OF YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WHICH NOW EXIST!!! HEAR ME!?!

Safety Check #7: Proposals which stray beyond the convention call would be subject to a court challenge.

Would you actually put the entire U.S. Constitution at risk on the flimsy hope that today's wishy-washy courts MIGHT challenge proposals straying beyond the convention call? Even if a proposal or two were to be challenged in court, the court has no obligation whatsoever to strike the offending proposal down.Safety Check #8: Thirty-eight states must ratify any changes in the Constitution that are passed at a convention.

There is no time limit, my sleepy little friends, for ratification of amendments proposed at Conventional Conventions, as there are for ALL Congressionally-inspired amendments. Over time, 38 states would ratify ANYTHING. Furthermore, convention delegates can CHANGE THE RATIFICATION REQUIREMENTS VIRTUALLY AT WILL, in order to suit their own agenda, just as your forefathers did at the convention of 1787!

So where are all the safety measures in the "Safety Checks"--the only checks your Congressional representatives seem to understand are those which are negotiable and payable to themselves personally, along with checks received as loans and sent forth out of your country while your populace can't afford to even have a checking account!

There are no safety checks -- there is simply a big fog of snow being put over on the gullible American public in order to hasten the advent of total control through a second convention.

Well, you do want a balanced budget! Well, unfortunately, the "safety checks" aren't the only fraudulent aspects of today's growing drive to have a new convention called. IN FACT, THE BIGGEST FRAUD OF ALL IS THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT (BBA) ITSELF!

Dharma, allow a rest please and this will be our next subject for discussion. I sincerely hope that all you readers will have severe indigestion over these projections. Do you actually have to hand the gun to the executioner for your own execution? You must learn to HEAR what they whisper in secret sessions. For just as you chuckle over the antics of your government politicians--so do they laugh at you while they spit upon your very existence. GET MAD! CONFOUND IT AMERICA--GET MAD!

[So, in short, as open-ended as the Constitutional Convention process is, as stated in the U.S. Constitution, and as untrustworthy as our Congressional members have been and continue to be, a Constitutional Convention is the wrong instrument to use to produce a Constitutional Amendment.]

Hatonn to stand-by. May God truly help you precious children to the lie, for you need it desperately. AHO!

***

5/29/90   HATONN

BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT: CRUEL FRAUD ON AMERICANS

The logical alternative to holding a second convention would be for Congress to act upon its own volition, and pas a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) if that is what is actually intended. But Congress obviously won't tie its own spendthrift hands with such an amendment.

So far the proposed ones are simply fraud on the American public. In fact, it is now the consensus of opinion that the BBA's proposed, to date, don't do anything at all to end deficit spending by the government. How can this be? Simple. It's because of five "hidden flaws".

FLAW #1: THE BBA'S FAIL TO DEFINE KEY WORDS.

Key words are not defined. This is important, because words such as "receipt" and "outlay" can have their entire meanings changed within the clear context of the amendment itself. How? By an act of Congress removing an item from the "official" budget and declaring it an "off-budget" item.

FLAW #2: THE BBA'S HAVE BUILT-IN "ESCAPE CLAUSES."

The proposed BBA's usually contain special provisions, called "escape clauses", which give Congress the ability to vote to IGNORE the provisions of the amendment. You can imagine how easy it would be, even under a "tough" BBA, to get today's big-spending Congress to vote to circumvent key provisions of the amendment in order to push through more spending bills. Instead of eliminating deficit spending, the BBA's merely formalize the process, and legitimatize its use.

FLAW #3: THE BBA'S CONTINUE TO ALLOW BORROWING

Deficit spending is caused by borrowing. There will never be a balanced federal budget as long as borrowing continues to finance last year's programs and cost overruns. Since the BBA's except [exempt(?)] borrowed funds from being counted as a receipt, the maintenance of the status quo is inevitable. The borrowing, and spending, continue as usual.

FLAW #4: THE BBA'S FAIL TO COVER "CONTRIBUTING FACTORS"

All of the major factors that contribute to federal deficits -- borrowing, interest payments, monetization of foreign debt, loan agreements, etc., must be included in any budget-balancing proposal, if its stated goal of "balancing the budget" is truly to be achieved. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the proposed BBA's that would disallow foreign or domestic loan guarantee agreements, or the monetizing of foreign debts. Both are MAJOR contributors to inflation, which helps cause deficits, which necessitate borrowing, which results in interest payments, which drain revenue from circulation, which necessitates additional borrowing and so on ad infinitum. This is already a worsening cycle.

FLAW #5: THE BBA'S ARE BASED ON "GUESSTIMATES"

The proposed BBA's are based chiefly on Congress' ability to predict the future and they can't even work on intelligence from the "past". In other words, a budget that is "balanced" on paper is completely Constitutional as far as the BBA is concerned -- even though that budget is based largely on long-term projections, estimates, predictions, averages, and guesses -- statistics can be arranged to meet any need what-so-ever to suit the writer and who would ever even check it out? For instance, if revenue fails to be generated "as predicted" in the budget, the resulting deficit would not be considered in violation. Therefore, the federal government could and would continue to pile up huge deficits, all the while claiming to have "balanced the budget." How convenient!

You can see that passing a BBA would do nothing to solve the government's monetary problems. It also must become obvious that a CRC would not improve the situation -- so you must realize that this is only a cover touted as need for a CRC. Therefore, in conclusion, the BBA is one of the cruelest and most blatant frauds ever foisted upon the taxpayer. A Constitutional Convention certainly would not improve the situation...especially when your current Constitution has a safe, sane, fool-proof method for balancing the budget build right into it and we shall look at it next.

BALANCE THE BUDGET CONSTITUTIONALLY -- AS IS!

You can accomplish a balanced budget the same way you did the first 150 years of existence.

Constitutional scholars have long recognized that the power of direct taxation included in the Constitution is the only legitimate, historically-proven and fully-Constitutional means with which to effect a balanced annual federal budget. This power of direct taxation for balancing the federal budget can be found by an attentive reading of Article I of the Constitution, and within the official legislative history of both America and the Constitution.

* "Representatives and Direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included in this Union, according to their respective Number. . ."

* "No Capitation, or other Direct Tax shall be laid unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

(Sources: Article I, Section 2, Clause 3; and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, respectively.)

Now, do not misunderstand what I say to you. I am neither taking pro or con sides to the topic of taxation; we are speaking of "Balancing a budget and pointing out that you already have that which you need--in the Constitution.

How about those first 150 years? Congress was to first use tariffs to fund the needs of the nation. Then, if more money was needed, they could use excise taxes. After that, if the federal government still needed more money to fund its various projects and obligations, then Congress would send each of the State Legislatures a bill for their share of the amount of funding needed.

The determination of how much money each state's "share" should be was based on the Census formula -- the same rule which determines the number of members each state receives in the House of Representatives. Upon receiving their "bill" from Congress, the individual state legislatures would then determine the best ways to raise the needed money from among the residents of the state.

WHAT IS GOOD ABOUT THIS? IF THE "BILLS" SENT TO THE STATE LEGISLATURES BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT STARTED GETTING EXCESSIVE, THE GOVERNOR AND PEOPLE OF EACH STATE COULD SIMPLY AND HONESTLY POINT TO THEIR OWN STATE'S DELEGATION TO CONGRESS AND CALL THEM TO ACCOUNT FOR IRRESPONSIBLE SPENDING HABITS IN CONGRESS. Then, come election time, the people of each state would vote out any big spending [by] Congressional representatives, and replace them with individuals who were more apt to vote "No"! on anything that even appeared to increase federal spending. In this way, excessive federal government spending was minimized, the federal budget was balanced annually, and the tax burden of each citizen was kept to a bare minimum.

Today, however, Congress appears quite afraid to use those Constitutionally-mandated powers of direct taxation. The reasons for this are four-fold:

#1: THEY ARE VERY APT TO UNCOVER THE FACT THAT THE INCOME TAX LAW IS UNLAWFUL, NULL AND VOID (16TH AMENDMENT) AND THEN THE FAT WOULD HIT THE FIRE AND EXPLODE.

#2: Congress has been telling you for years that there is no way out of your present deficit crisis without a Constitutional amendment mandating a balanced federal budget--in order to get a CRC and really blast you taxpayers. Therefore, for Congress to even admit the existence of this proven method for balancing the budget, they would also have to admit they've been looking you right in the eye and lying to you all along.

#3: Some members of Congress WANT a CRC to be convened so limitations on Congressional powers can be removed and the balance of power can shift in their favor. Having to admit the existence of a Constitutional power that eliminates deficits almost overnight would take the wind right out of the sails of those who claim to support a CRC for the purpose of eliminating those very same federal deficits.

#4: Today's big-spending Congressional representatives do not want to impose a direct tax on the states. Why? Because they know that to do so would force them to be held accountable to the governor, legislature and citizenry of their own state. Instead of being able to vote indiscriminately in favor of legislation that drives federal spending higher and higher, they would have to justify every new expenditure to you the people. DON'T BE LONGER FOOLED, THE CRC IS TO IMPOSE LAWS AND CHANGE LAWS--NOT BALANCE A BUDGET OR STOP FLAG BURNING!

Keep in mind, beloved friends, that the very ones who are pushing for a convention are the very ones directly set up by the "Cartel" who would have global control--it is not even well-hidden. Please note that you are so brainwashed that you don't even notice who the enemy actually is. You fall into the old trap of believing these global puppet masters are the good and altruistic philanthropists. Nay, and you will pay dearly with your freedom and your material goods. Look very, very carefully at that which is being foisted upon you in your inattention.

Hatonn to clear please. Thank you.

 

---

Resource: PHOENIX JOURNAL EXPRESS, May 1990, Volume 2, Number 4.

Emphasis and comments added by Rocky Montana - 1/12/11

Jan. 10, 2011

http://www.phoenixarchives.com/express/1990/0590/02-04.pdf

Thank you Rocky Montana