Image result for dr dans freedom forum

Help Educate America
Click on the following link to help educate America.
Donations are not tax deductible.

Keith Broaders
1230 N Street #510
Sacramento, California 95814
Phone (916) 399-4881

I had this link sent to my promotions file. Click Here to see what I'm talking about and tell us what you think of these Article V proposals.

Views: 822

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I am one of the founders of the Article V Project to restore Liberty and it is not a "CON CON" it is a REPEAL AMENDMENT.

I know Magnus,

I just said that to get people's attention. It is what it is. I intended that the website be seen and I still hope it will be. Thanks for chiming in. You are of course to be commended for your efforts to help restore freedom to America. Thank You.

Mangus, I would like to speak with you personally offboard.  Would this be possible?  Please email you contact info to  I look forward to hearing from you.  Christine Fitz

This is likely the ONLY THING that should be considered at this point in our history. I fear that the "states" have become nothing more than dependent arms of the Federal Leviathan and this will not get support it deserves.

The Library project part is being widely circulated - many Universities, Government agencies, Colleges, Hillsdale College, High schools and grade schools across the nation are all using the site. It is good to see so many downloading the Bill of Rights, the Constitutions, studying the classics and American History in the basic library - many Students are there spending hours each week.

Education of the entire population is the only answer to saving the Republic. The education system has revised history so much that the true meaning of the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers has been erased from the NEW history. It is up to all of us to circulate and create more sites like the AV project so the facts might be discovered and debated in open forums.

Thank you for the support. Anyone is welcome to write an article or become a contributor. Just Private Msg. me and I will have you set up.

Why would anybody want to put more power into the hands of the systemic cabal? Because that is exactly what this will do.....

the best shot there is is a Common Law Grand Jury to criminally convict these domestic enemies and then you have to wonder if you will find enough intelligent life source to sustain it. 

Au contraire,

Repealing the 14th removes the power of the courts to legislate from the bench and to make federal law superior to States, the 16th takes away the money to bribe State and local governments, the 17th takes away the super national House - it puts the Senate back under the Control of the State Legislatures, a seat at the Federal table for each State.

The AV project reduces the governments powers over we the people and our States. 


Appealing these so-called amendments that were never properly ratified in the first place is admirable.  I certainly agree with your synopsis of the effect/result of doing so.  That said, an Article V convention will not accomplish that for at least 3 very good reasons.  Neither will the phony so-called Common Law Grand Jury.  False information on both of those is misleading a lot of people. 

Look at the fiasco currently happening in Dixie County Florida. Trussell was in an ideal situation to set things straight and blew it.  Now Trussell is facing charges that could lock him up for 50 years.  His belief that the CLGJ could do whatever it wishes has, as some of us have predicted, been his downfall and has resulted in criminal charges.  Was that prosecuting attorney operating unlawfully?  Of course, but Trussell stepped outside the law himself because he believed the lies he had been fed. The Article V situation is different but possibly worse in that it will likely result in the total destruction of our republic. 

There is no provision for limiting an Article V Convention to a specific subject or bill.  There is no provision granting the people any means to control who the delegates to such a convention will be.  Any State that recalls it's delegates will only be left out of the process.  Look at the only true example we have, the purpose was ignored and so was the ratification process.

Now we have a completely different political environment that is much more dangerous because even our States are under the control of the banksters.  The possibility of the people having any control over the convention is nothing more than a pipe dream being propagandized by those who wish to destroy the rights of the people.  Who is driving this? 

The CFR is driving it working through bar attorneys, some of whom have been duped by our corrupted educational and judicial system.  Do your own research.  Start by reading the issue briefs of brilliant minds such as Dr. Edwin Vieira, Publius Hulda, Aaron Bolinger, Dr. Karen Ruff and others.  Stop believing the lies of the Norquists and Natelsons.

I have read all of those sources and have even placed their works in our library. However they are "IMPORTING" items and rules into the four corners of the Constitution that are just not there. So, their opinion have no legal "FOUNDATION" to the actual Constitution.

Many many Constitutional scholars have been included in the AV Library and for the most part your quoted sources have even published papers that SUPPORT repealing the 16th amendment. The same method we are proposing was used in the 21st amendment and Congress saw that 3/4 of the State Legislatures were going to submit a repeal amendment to remove the 18th amendment - so Congress to not yield any illusion of State power over the federal called for a Ratification vote by Legislatures. 

The same thing happened if you read the history when the 18th was passed. The States were ready to ban the sale of alcohol again Congress then acted first.

I find it interesting that Dr. Vieira, Publius Huldah, Arron Bolinger, Dr. Ruff all call other lawyers and scholars liars but they can not defeat the legal argument much less the Constitutional argument. You forgot to include Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum. 

They all use extreme liberal progressives as sources - like Supreme Court Chief Justice Burger - he was the 5th vote on Abortion being legal - Roe V Wade was his courts decision 5 to 4. Conservative - I think not. Go through their position papers and then try to find Constitutional justification for their position. You will find none because it is just not there.

They will all go to CASE LAW PRECEDENT which is not included in the Article III powers of the court to even use as law. [Usurped powers]

Predetermined Position Regarding the Constitution

I have never said one must trust the attorneys.

I present the facts that are on the ground, all may choose to like them or dislike them.  But we all must address reality if they desire to restore theORIGINAL CONSTITUTION.

I do not say to disregard history. When using historical example one should include it all in your OPINIONS if you desire to be convincing. For example you must find the 'historical meaning' of Natural Born in the time of King George-when discussing what the Founders meant when they were discussing that same definition.  Only then, have you completely and honestly presented the history and the truth of your analogy.

It is always interesting when people attack others that have deferring OPINIONS of the Constitution than their own.  - Name-calling usually accompanies a losing argument in an attempt to discredit any challenger. If an OPINION is 100% solid, it should present a real connected -well presented and documented statement -that proves a point of view. Bear in mind, if you are starting from a predetermined position and are blinded to any other result or conclusion, will you arrive at an honest destination, or the one you chose first and then figured out how to arrive there in the first place.  Is the truth the honest destination or was it all about the journey?

History is what I encourage you to study.  In doing so, please keep inside the four corners of the Constitution.  If you have an issue with what the Constitution actually says, I would encourage you to simply go to the dictionaries of the time and find the actual meaning of the words at the point in time when they were written.

There are many sources for meanings of the time. When I do not see any them being used, it signals one thing... this person does not think the FF & R did not state in clear terms what they meant. These persons dance on the heads of history to distort the true meaning of the Constitution as it was written.  They are engaged in the practice of interpretation and distortion and stretching and adapting the document to their own opinion or interpretation.
I find also, critics seldom provide solutions to the issues of usurpation and tyranny. While they may complain and complain, they  never present a way to restoration. I liken it to the Preacher that keeps defining historical sin but never speaks of how sinners can stop. Progress is earned not defended.


For those who wish to fully understand this topic, a definitive collection of issue briefs have been published by the Sherman Institute under the title "The Constitution of the United States Article V - Con Con?" To get a copy of the above book prepared in the public interest by The Sherman Institute , contact me at
You may listen to an excellent interview on the topic here:

Or read a brief on the topic here:

So many 'think' they know what Article V is about, just like so many 'think' they know what Scalia said in the Williams decision regarding Grand Juries.  Unfortunately, repeating other's erroneous quotes and wishful thinking can leave one separated from reality.  Do your own research because most of what is floating around out there are lies and misinformation.  What has been put out there on Article V is mostly malarkey.  The above stated collection of issue briefs will reconnect you with reality.

One mans OPINION By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D. - He has been and is associated with the anti Article V groups like John Birch Society and Eagle Forum. The Article V Project to Restore Liberty addresses his and three or four others of their opinion. The following links will address most items if you have any questions or comments.

Dr. Vieira is a free thinker and not associated with the groups you mention, nor am I.  His opinion is that of a highly respected constitutional attorney and based upon the constitution itself.  He is not alone in his opinion which is shared by every trustworthy constitutional authority I know.  His conclusions are sound as are those of the others I have referred to.  After studying the plain English of Article V, one can only contest those conclusions by making the Article say something it does not say, ignoring the experience of the first constitutional convention and deluding one's self about the present political environment.  The conclusions of the brilliant minds I have mentioned merely mirror my own well informed opinion which was reached prior to encountering those opinions.  I encourage people to read those most well informed issue briefs because they utterly destroy the thought of an Article V call in the minds of logical and sensible people.


© 2020   Created by Online Professor.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service