Additional Titles









Wolves in Sheep's Clothing?











By Kelleigh Nelson
September 22, 2011

Who is Behind the Con-Con Push

The Constitution has been a target from its very inception. In the mid 1800s, the American Fabian Society wrote in its journal that the Constitution was too highly individualist to allow for the gradual implementation of socialism. In the 1950s, the World Constitution and Parliamentary Association was calling for a world constitutional convention. They've been at it ever since and one of the Constitutions slated for inclusion in the Convention is theirs and it would help introduce a world constitution.

Henry Hazlitt, formerly the economic advisor to pro Constitutional Convention James Dale Davidson's National Taxpayer's Union, was a renowned conservative and he wrote a book which he republished in 1974 called, "A New Constitution Now." This book is extremely dangerous inasmuch as he states things like, "an amendment could be proposed that would strike out everything after "We the people," and that of course includes the Bill of Rights. He was of course suggesting that everything after "We the people" on down be scrapped and rewritten, which is amazing as this document has provided more human dignity and freedom for more people than any other in recorded history.[3]

The one purpose of the Con-Con is to eliminate the allegiance of this nation to God, family and country. To do that, the elimination of inalienable, permanent rights from God must happen.

James Dale Davidson has been at the forefront in pushing for a Con-Con for decades and used to give $100,000 per year towards that cause. He was also one of the initial board members on Newsmax along with CFR members Alexander Haig and Arnaud de Borchgrave. Newsmax is Christopher Ruddy's organization and was funded by Richard Mellon Scaife who funds both sides of the aisle much like the Koch brothers and Soros. Scaife is pro-abortion and strongly believes in taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood.

In 1980, the committee on the constitutional System (the CCS) came together in D.C. It was comprised of globalists, internationalists and career politicians. The CCS was founded by members of the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission (TC) and funded by Ford, Rockefeller, American Express and Hewlett Foundations Their directors were nearly all CFR and TC members. Those involved included former Attorney General Thornburgh, former Secretary of the Treasury Brady, sitting Senators like Kassebaum, Moynihan and Hollings, and the wealthy and influential Robert McNamara, William Fulbright and Douglas Dillon, among others.

Career elitist politicians from both the Republican and Democrat camps have been strong proponents of a Con-Con, including 3rd party advocates like Ross Perot (CFR), President Clinton (CFR), President G.H.W. Bush. Today of course the majority of both parties would love a Con-Con. The State Legislative Lobbyists are some of the worst however and this includes the rightwing American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) who has been pushing a Con-Con for decades. Part 4 of The Phony Right Wing speaks to the efforts of ALEC and their corporate members wishing to rewrite the Constitution.

All of the One-Worlders want and need a Constitutional Convention despite taking an oath to uphold the original document. The majority are CFR members, globalists, New World Order planners, Trilateralists, Order of Skull and Bones, Transnationalists, Bilderbergers, Geopoliticians, Club of Rome and Bohemian Club Members.[4] Other partners are the likes of Judge Anthony Napolitano who started pushing a Con-Con on the Glenn Beck show May 1, 2009, after the very first Tea Party on April 15th, 2009.

The attack on our Constitution has never come from some fringe element, but from powerful and ostensibly upstanding people on both the right and the left. Nearly always those in the "white hats" or "our guys" are the ones pushing a Con-Con to the conservatives and making it sound oh-so-wonderful to the electorate who haven't a clue of the protections from government which the Constitution gives them.[5]

What is Required to Add an Amendment

An amendment to the constitution is first proposed by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a Constitutional Convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by Constitutional Convention. This is the way we've ratified amendments since the Bill of Rights. It is then sent to the states for their votes. If 38 of the states ratify the amendment, it will be added to the Constitution.


A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 states). When the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed. [Link]

The other way is to have two-thirds of the states, that is thirty-four states of our fifty states petitioning Congress for a Constitutional Convention. With an amendment, the only thing that is examined, dissected, reviewed, and surgically changed is the amendment itself. But a Constitutional Convention is not just the amendment that is at issue. The whole document is taken down from its pedestal and is put on the table and the people go to work on it. This is fertile ground for someone to step in and say, "Here is a new modern Constitution which has been developed by the great brains of the world today." These are not statesmen with the God given rights of the people in their hearts and minds, but globalists and internationalists seeking to control every single breath we take and dying when they deem it necessary.[6]

Today's Balanced Budget Amendment Ruse

Today's Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) is a hoax and a huge trap. Again, the politicians are selling this to the people because it has such a great sounding name, just like it did a couple decades ago when we fought the push for a Con-Con then. The problem with this Amendment (which quite obviously all 47 Republican Senators and most of the Republican Representatives don't understand because they never read the Constitution) is that the Constitution LIMITS what the federal government is allowed to spend with taxpayer dollars. It is so limited that the funding of outrageous items today would fill an encyclopedia. Our Constitution does not authorize foreign aid, or museums about rock stars, or studying of the blue lizard, or Chinese prostitutes, or unconstitutional wars, etc. ad nauseum. We have a majority of Republicans in congress why in heaven's name aren't they balancing the budget now without an amendment?

This BBA that all these folks absolutely love and want passed and talk so openly about to the dumbed down electorate would actually LEGALIZE CONSTITUTIONALLY ILLEGAL SPENDING, and give them a free hand to spend whatever they want to on any frivolous item that floats past their desks. The Constitution limits CONGRESS alone to the spending of money! "The BBA will usher in a totalitarian dictatorship. Pursuant to the unconstitutional Budget Act of 1921, the President has been preparing the budget. Since the Budget Act is unconstitutional, the President’s preparation of the budget has been likewise unconstitutional. Section 3 of the BBA would legalize what is now unconstitutional and unlawful. But Section 3 of the BBA does more than merely legalize the unlawful. It actually transfers the Constitutional power to make the appropriations and to determine taxes to the President. Congress will become a rubber stamp."

Please read Publius Huldah's, "Why the BBA is a Hoax" on this diabolical change to our constitution planned by the rightwing who have long been in bed with the left. Senators Jim DeMint and Mike Lee (neo-cons) are determined to jam this down our throats along with Congressional creatures like Michelle Bachmann. Don't tell me they don't understand fully what they're doing because nearly every one of these people are lawyers and they've certainly studied the law. In the July 7, 2011, WSJ, Jim DeMint joined with that bastion of conservative politics, Olympia Snowe of Maine to push the BBA stating it is The Only Reform That Will Restrain Spending. Liars and thieves!

Another huge danger with this proposed BBA is the Constitutional Convention. Those of us who have written about the Con-Con call have grave concerns that this BBA could easily turn into an Article V convention. Should the BBA fail to get 38 or three-fourths of the states to ratify, the Republicans (who seem to be pushing this for both parties) could easily tell the electorate they can't get the Democrats to go along with balancing the budget, so we need to get these same states to put out a call for a Constitutional Convention where we can open the constitution for one reason only and that's to balance the budget.

They only need two-thirds or 34 states to put out a call for a Constitutional Convention to open one. I wrote about this in detail in my article, Wolves in Sheep's Clothing?, and Tom DeWeese of American Policy Center has written about it extensively as has the John Birch Society, and Bernadine Smith of the Second Amendment Committee, as well as many others.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:


Hard work and a great deal of prayer went into fighting off the first big call for a Constitutional Convention when we came within two states of seeing it happen. The effort has regained new speed with a new generation that knows nothing of the dangers of a Con-Con, nor the history of our founders and the document itself. I pray people will come to the realization that our freedoms are disappearing at a rapid rate by degrees every single day and will wake up in time to save the one protection we have left. We need to be forceful and vigilant in demanding our representatives obey their oaths of office to the Constitution rather than allowing them to rewrite the very document that is our last protection against total annihilation of our God given unalienable rights. It is only the voices of the people, the grass roots, with everything to lose, who can stop this. It was Thomas Jefferson who said, "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

Click here for part -----> 1,


1. Constitution in Crisis, Kenneth C. Hill and Joan Collins.
2. Ibid, page 12
3. Ibid, page 13
4. Ibid, page 30
5. Ibid, page 13
6. Ibid, page 17

2010 Kelleigh Nelson - All Rights Reserved

Share This Article

Click Here For Mass E-mailing

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

Kelleigh Nelson has been researching the Christian right and their connections to the left, the new age, and cults since 1975. Formerly an executive producer for three different national radio talk show hosts, she was adept at finding and scheduling a variety of wonderful guests for her radio hosts. She and her husband live in Knoxville, TN, and she has owned her own wholesale commercial bakery since 1990. Prior to moving to Tennessee, Kelleigh was marketing communications and advertising manager for a fortune 100 company in Ohio. Born and raised in Chicago, Illinois, she was a Goldwater girl with high school classmate, Hillary Rodham, in Park Ridge, Illinois. Kelleigh is well acquainted with Chicago politics and was working in downtown Chicago during the 1968 Democratic convention riots.











Back in the early 80s, the same excuse was used then as is being used now to push for a Constitutional Convention -- a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA). We fought then with prayer and hard work.