moo-4

READERS’ FORUM

Comments under 300 words, please. We cannot engage in correspondence but do appreciate your contribution. We do not publish insults or attacks against other readers. Points should stand on their own merits. You are welcome to express your religious views but not to criticize the views of others. Our mission is to unify our readers, not divide them. Send comments here.

_____________________________

PROBLEM WITH A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
2015 Oct 28 from Joseph Lawson
[This is in response to an email invitation to participate in Operation Destination, the 2nd Congress of Freedom Force.]

I appreciate what you guys are attempting GEG but I sincerely believe we all need to get our hands around this Convention of States that Mr. Mark Levin is proudly sponsoring. Peace and Goodwill.

REPLY FROM GEG:
Hello Joe.
Please re-read the section of my message that follows the photo collage. It clarifies the problem of trying to make a meaningful change by convening the states to re-write the Constitution (amending is the indirect way of re-writing it).

The problem is that the people who will attend such a convention will not be those who think like we do but are the ones already in power who hate the restraints against their power that the Constitution provides. What good will it do if the states change the Constitution so it can be “harmonized” with world government based on the model of collectivism?

By the way, once the convention is called, there is no way to limit the scope of the amendments, contrary to what Levin says.

Until we deal with the ideology behind our efforts, we are merely re-arranging deck chairs on the sinking Titanic. That’s precisely what Operation Destination is all about. Something to think about, and thanks for caring.

________________________

SANCTUARY CITIES ARE UNLAWFUL
2015 Oct 27 from Bryan Snider
Dear Mr. Griffin, Isn’t aiding and abetting a criminal a crime? Whoever authorizes sanctuary cities needs to be arrested. Under this criminal statute, anyone who aids or abets a crime may be charged directly with the crime, as if the charged had carried out the act himself. [Reference] This is distinct from the concept of being an accessory after the fact, a charge distinct from being a principal.