How Will Con-Con “Conservatives” Respond to Demands by Leftist Allies?

A recent article published by Mother Jonesabout the Right-Left alliance calling for a constitutional convention (con-con) includes an illuminating look at the agenda of one of the leftist groups that should be a warning to those on the Right who believe an Article V convention could be controlled.

In California, there’s a group called (appropriately) California Constitutional Convention (Cal Con-Con) and their agenda is astounding.

First, congressional term limits. Now, I know that most of the self-described “conservatives” on the con-con bandwagon will nod at this proposal, as it has broad appeal among people who don’t quite understand the concept of representation or individual accountability.

Some of the right-wingers might be accommodating of Cal Con-Con’s next Article V agenda item.

The group’s second suggestion: abolish the Electoral College. I’ve written thousands of words on this subject, so for the sake brevity in this article, I’ll insert these links to articles on the dangers of eliminating the Electoral College.

Now, as we work our way down the Cal Con-Con amendment agenda, the “conservatives” wanting a con-con might start getting a little uncomfortable with their convention cohorts on the Left.

According to the group’s website, Cal Con-Con will insist that the delegates consider their proposal to lower the voting age to 16.

This, the group insists, is part of their overall mission of “ensuring the rights of nature.”

I don’t get it either.

Hang on, though. We’re just getting started.

Here’s how Mother Jones summarized Cal Con-Con’s co-founder Clare Hedin’s responses regarding “rights of nature:”

Among other things, [she] calls on the federal government to recognize nature as “a freely living being with inalienable rights.” For Hedin, this provision is paramount — and personal. “I really love this planet,” she says. “It’s a feeling of duty and respect to do whatever I can to intelligently bring about a shift in consciousness, a shift in awareness, around our role as humans on this planet.”

So, Constitution 2.0 — the goal of Mark Levin, Mark Meckler, Greg Abbott, George Soros, and others — could include an amendment requiring Americans to recognize the “inalienable rights” of trees, grass, wind, sun, etc.

Think of the implications (don’t think of them, though, if you support the misnamed “Convention of States” or other “conservative” members of the con-con coalition) of this proposal.

Could you be arrested for mowing your lawn? Could you be arrested for having solar panels, harnessing the sun’s power without its consent? Could you be arrested for poisoning the planet with all your exhaled carbon dioxide? The possible permutations are innumerable!

Along with planet protection, also on the list of amendments the Cal Con-Con is “demanding” at an Article V convention is “protection and respect for LGBTQ rights.”

Is there anything that need be said there? What group with funds enough to buy a seat at the convention won’t be demanding that its “rights” be explicitly protected by the new constitution?

ConCon Banner

Next, the Cal Con-Con will insist that the convention debate its motion to amend the Constitution to reduce greenhouse gas levels in the United States to the limits set by the Paris Accords, “in accordance with the Global Goals.”

In fairness, there are some right-wing con-con proponents who would be fine forcing Americans to “save the environment.” For those wondering about the “science” supporting the “climate change” agenda, here are a couple of links.

Now, what about this “Global Goals” initiative the Cal Con-Con will demand be deliberated at the convention? Here we go.

Here’s a partial list of the Global Goals that the Cal Con-Con will call for at the convention: Gender Equality, Affordable and Clean Energy, Reduced Inequalities, Sustainable Cities and Communities, Responsible Consumption and Production, and Climate Action.

I wonder what Meckler, Levin, et al. would say about their ally’s agenda.

More importantly, what would the otherwise well-meaning, genuine conservatives say about the demands of their Progressive partisans?

Cal Con-Con’s ultimate goal, as reported by Mother Jones, is to do away with “a system called voting” and to throw onto the scrap heap of history the “thin, old” Constitution written in 1787 and ratified in 1788.

That’s the bottom line for Cal Con-Con, and it is this statement that should send shivers down the spine of the aforementioned misled conservatives who have been sold a bill of goods by hucksters who stand to profit from a con-con, regardless of the harm the document it produces poses to the United States and to individual liberty.

How will the leaders of the Convention of States, the Compact for America, and the other “conservative” con-con promoters respond to this latest revelation of the extreme Progressive principles of their fellow Article V advocates?

Reprinted with permission from The New American

%d bloggers like this: