Convention of the States Finally Admits to an

Alliance with Progressives

I receive E-mails from Convention of the States Project and its parent
entity Citizens for Self Government. In June, I received an E-mail
from Mark Meckler under the banner of Citizens for Self Government.
Mr. Meckler was rightfully condemning an action of the EPA. I wrote
back and explained that in 1995, then-Governor Leavitt of Utah was
leading the way in the promotion of a Conference of the States
demanding a restoration of the balance of stated. I explained the
hypocricy of Mr. Leavitt who after leaving office in Utah became
director of the EPA under George W. Bush. Leavitt wasnt really
interested in a restoration of federal-state relations, or he would have
never worked for an entity like the EPA. I also asked him why Mr.
Mike Farris refused to answer Andy Schlaflys question about COSs
funding source. His reply with my rebuttal highlighted in blue is
below:
On Friday, June 20, 2014, <shurtleffhal@aol.com> wrote:
Mark:
Thank you for your reply.

My comments are highlighted in blue:.

Hal,
Thanks for your email. I was unaware of the situation you described
with Leavett. I've never heard it referenced by anyone in regard to
our work since conceiving of, and beginning the Convention of States
project.
We are told that Article V supporters want to restore a balance
between the federal government, and the states, but some of them
have little to say about the billions of tax dollars the feds routinely
send to states. One glaring example of this hypocrisy is the National
Governors Association. This lobbyist group supports an Article V
convention while it actively promotes a total federal takeover of

education via Common Core. Indeed, it holds part of the copyright for
Common Core. The organization had no trouble with the money the
feds poured into the states to bribe them into taking Common Core
before it was unveiled. Then the group has the audacity to call for a
restoration of the balance between the states, and the federal
government. Has COS taken this group to task for its support of
Common Core?
In regard to how Citizens for Self-Governance gets its funds, the
organization has literally thousands of grassroots donors from all
across the nation who provide our funding. We do not make that list
available, as we have no obligation to do so, we promise the donors
that we will not, and we've seen how the left attacks when donors are
made visible. The Prop. 8 fight in California saw donors attacked
viciously by their leftists opponents for even the smallest donations.
We will not subject dedicated patriots to such abuse.
I agree that you should not disclose your donor list. I am well aware
of how some elements on the left have attacked donors Indeed, my
family and I were potential victims of such an attack. But, you and I
both know he wasn't referring to private donors. He was referring to
corporate donors. ALEC, a long-time promoter of an Article V, is
supported by many large left-wing corporations. This explains why
the organization is promoting Obama's Trans-Atlantic and Trans
Pacific Partnerships. We also know that the left-wing side of the
Article V movement is being funded in part by George Soros. By the
way,. when Cenk Uygur interviewed you at the Harvard Forum, why
didn't you correct him when he used the term "Con-Con" to describe
an Article V Convention? www/conconcon.org
So, like Eagle Forum and Andy Schlafly and his mother, we don't
make our donor lists publicly available. In fact, no organizations
involved in difficult controversial public fights do, as far as I am
aware. Like them, we think donor privacy is an important and
fundamental part of a free political process, and those who wish to
force disclosure are mostly on the left, and are walking a dangerous
path.
The leftist call for disclosure of donors should not be echoed by those
on the right who value freedom and privacy. In demanding donor

disclosure, you are becoming a tool of the left, who wish to see the
donor lists of great patriotic organizations on the right, so that they
may target the donors and cut off the funding for those organizations.
Beware of such calls...today they are the clarion call, and the greatest
fantasy of the liberal left, and you are walking directly into the trap
they have set.
The liberal left? Do you mean COS's colleagues who have formed
a coalition with you? By promoting an Article V, can be concluded
that COS is a "tool of the left?"
If in seeking such disclosure you are implying that a conservative with
the record of Mike Farris, is somehow a paid tool of those on the left
who might wish to limit our liberties, that is an outrageous and
untenable slander supported by absolutely no facts. And you must
throw into that pot, great patriots like Mark Levin, Col. Allen West,
Sen. Mike Lee, constitutional scholar David Barton and the many
other great conservatives that support this cause.
This approach to debate represents the sort of ugly politics of
personal destruction played by the left against the right. It is
particularly unbecoming when patriots on the right engage in such
behavior against their fellow patriots. We, as conservatives, must
be able to debate on the merits of the arguments themselves.
Michael Farris did so admirably in his debate with Mr. Schalfly.
Unfortunately, Mr. Schlafly didn't respond in kind.
I am not implying anything about Mike Farris. I have friends who
support an Article V including one who is a New Hampshire state rep.
After we testified on the opposite side of the issue, we had lunch
together. I agree that it is unbecoming when patriots on the right
engage in such behavior against their fellow patriots. You and Mike
Farris set the tone. You started with your ugly article referring to
Phyllis Schlafly's frail hand, and you made the claim that all she had
was a letter from Warren Burger to make her case. You wrote an
article questioning the legal credentials of Joe Wolverton of "The New
American." A few months ago, Mr. Farris spoke to a group at the
State House in Richmond, Virginia where he called The John Birch
Society "evil' and "enemies of the Constitution". His home school
group has always had John Birch Society members in its ranks, and a

few years ago, the society's magazine ran a favorable interview of

Mr. Farris. So until he jumped on the Article V bandwagon, he had no
issue with The John Birch Society, but now its woe to any and all who
dare oppose an Article V Convention. Over the past few months,
members of your group have called me many vile names. One of
them, your Maine rep, made the outrageous accusation that The
John Birch Society had the blood of innocent babies on its hands. an
The dishonest, non-factual, leftist approach was indeed the choice of
Andy Schlafly. He attacked on the basis of fear and innuendo,
without the foundation of any facts or history. This was repeatedly
and accurately pointed out by Farris during the debate. It was
disgraceful for Schlafly to attack Mike Farris for not focusing on
important social issues, or to accuse by implication that Mike was
taking money from nefarious sources. Mr. Schlafly knows Mike Farris
far better than that. He's known and worked with Mike Farris for
virtually his entire adult life. It was truly sad to watch Mr. Schlafly
attempt to smear Mr. Farris, and the only real effect was to sully his
own reputation as an honest proponent of conservative ideas.
Are you this hard on your leftists colleagues from Wolf PAC and
Move to Amend? I didn't hear you lashing out against leftists at the
Harvard Forum. Did you go after leftists at your Aspen Institute
engagement? Did you denounce the Aspen Institute for hosting
Elian Gonzalez, and the Communist Cuban doctors who loaded up
the little boy with psychotropic drugs? Your group uses "fear and
innuendo." COS supporters tell Americans that an Article V is our
only hope to save our country.
It is time for Eagle Forum and JBS to stop the slander, fearmongering and smears and deal only in facts. And you must decide
whose side you are on. Will you side with those who use leftist
tactics of personal destruction? Or will you, as a good conservative,
rely upon your own read of only the facts and history. That's a choice
each conservative must make for themselves. Overwhelmingly,
those who do their homework are choosing the honest history and
facts of Convention of States and our supporters over the lies,
slander and smears of Eagle Forum and JBS.

It is time for COS to stop the fear-mongering, smears and

misinformation.
While the John Birch Society and Eagle Forum spend their time and
energy engaged in a campaign to smear great, proven patriots,
millions of Americans are exercising their right as granted in Article V,
to call a Convention of States for proposing amendments to limit the
scope, power and jurisdiction of the federal government. We hope
you will choose to stand for truth, justice and the Constitution, and will
join us.
COS and its Article V allies are spending its time, and funds in a
campaign to rewrite the Constitution, while it smears great proven
patriots and misleads millions of Americans into the idea that an
Article V convention will lead to a restoration of the Republic.
Members of The John Birch Society, and Eagle Forum aren't
engaging in lies, slander and smears. They have been working for
decades to educate and inform elected officials, and the American
people. Their efforts, so far, have prevented an Article V convention.
I will indeed stand for truth, justice and the Constitution. I took an
oath to defend the Constitution when I was 17 years, and will
continue to honor that oath until the day I die. Therefore, I will to do
whatever I can to stop an Article V despite the smears COS has
launched against Constitutionalists who don't want to see COS and
Wolf PAC rewrite our Constitution.
Sincerely, Hal Shurtleff

Mark Meckler, President

Citizens for Self-Governance
(530) 274-9900 Office
(530) 210-6080 Cell

A few days ago, I received an E-mail from COS and replied

with a link to this article http://www.jbs.org/home/article-vpromoter-praises-democratic-leadership-inmovement#startOfPageId14007 demonstrating COSs
support of left-wing groups. This was the reply I received
from its Grassroot Coordinator, Eric Burk:
Good morning Hal,
Thank you for your support of the COS Project, and for
sending us this article.
Allow me to explain why we're excited to have progressives
on board. This email is a little long and involved because I
need to explain some of the background to the terminology
at play here. I want to make sure you have the whole story
so you understand what we're doing.
First off, the Convention of States Project is unaffiliated. We
don't help any other organizations or lend our support to
them. That includes the BBA, CFA, and Wolf-Pac folks. It
absolutely includes political parties.
However, we're glad to receive support from anyone. Here's
why: the United States of America, a democratic republic, is
founded on the notion that liberty is best preserved by a
variety of ideologies working together to analyze and discuss
problems in government and provide the best response. In
fact, the founders were very afraid that factions would
dominate and overwhelm the political system. That fear
stems from the recognition that any form of democracy,
including a democratic republic, requires a balance of ideas.
Even if one political party or politician was completely well
meaning in holding to a well meant ideology, that person or
party would at best have blind spots and at worst be
completely wrong about the correct response to a given
solution. Having a blend of ideologies counteracts this, and

this is the sort of thing we hope to see at a Convention of

States: the brightest and best American patriots from all
states and many backgrounds and ideologies, selected to
represent the people in the great democratic republican
tradition and craft the best response to current blights
affecting government and liberty. We do not want any one
party to dominate this, since that will dangerously weaken
the process and the results.
At this point I need to make a long aside. The article throws
around terms like democratic and republican, using them to
mean different things at different times, and it is confusing.
So let's clarify.
First, let's address what small-d democratic means. A
democratic nation is one where the people govern
themselves. Pure democracy sees all the people making all
the decisions. In a (very) small nation-state, this could be
an ideal format; unfortunately, on any sort of medium to
large scale, having all the people making all the laws quickly
becomes impractical. That's where small-r republic comes in.
A republic is sort of a generic term for a nation that is not
ruled by a king, but by some other body of leaders. Thus, a
republican nation is a nation ruled by some non-specific
body of rulers.
In modern times, the term republic is starting to become
erroneously interchangeable with the concept of a
democratic republic, which is a modified form of democracy
that uses a body of democratically elected leaders to
represent the will of the individual citizens. In the USA, we
have a democratic republic. We elect leaders to make the
laws; we don't decide on all the laws ourselves, and, at least
in theory, the leaders are obligated to obey the will of the
people. This means that even though we still do have rulers,
the people of the US are truly the government. The leaders
are merely the representatives, democratically elected, of
the people.

In other words, lowercase republican and democratic are

just pure, technical adjectives for types of government.
There's not really a right or wrong connotation to either
term; we just have a democratic republic because it is an
efficient way to allow the people to govern themselves.
That brings us to the political parties. For clarity, a
convention has arisen that when speaking of the party or
party affiliation, it is proper to capitalize the terms. Thus, a
Republican is not necessarily someone who doesn't want a
king, but merely someone who happens to align with the
Republican party platform. In the same way, a Democrat is
not necessarily someone who embraces the ideal of all the
people individually making all the laws, but is merely
someone who aligns with the Democrat party platform.
It's worth noting that these party names are not inherently
in conflict. The parties took the names from forms of
government, but even in their infancy, the Republican and
Democrat parties certainly weren't more aligned with one or
the other. Both parties equally embraced the US' democratic
republic. In the many years since these parties were formed,
the ideologies represented by each party have shifted, and
by now the names are nothing more than a well known
identifier for specific political ideologies. In the modern day,
the names of the political parties mean absolutely nothing
for the ideologies represented by the party platforms. That's
why it is important not to confuse the technical and
academic terms describing forms of government (democratic
and republican) with the more or less meaningless names
for the political parties (Republican and Democratic).
Just because someone is Democratic in party does not mean
that they reject a republican form of government by calling
for all the people of the US to meet perpetually and vote on
every law together; Democrats still believe in the concept of
a democratic republic. In the same way, Republicans do not

(at least in ideology) reject democracy and try to rule

without representing the will of the people; the Republican
party certainly does also embrace the democratic republic
wherein the people elect representatives and the people give
them authority.
Regardless of political affiliation then, Democrats and
Republicans alike support the notion of a democratic
republic.
At the Convention of States Project, we're also
wholeheartedly behind the ideal of a democratic republic,
and we think that a Convention of States is a great way to
use that form of government to preserve liberty. Think about
it: the people (democracy) select delegates to represent
them (republic) at a Convention to select the best
amendments to the Constitution. That's why we embrace
people from any background in our call for a Convention. We
trust the system to allow the best American patriots to
eliminate dangerous, ineffective, and crazy ideas in a
Convention of delegates from a broad variety of
backgrounds. We trust the democratic republic system to
present the best solutions, not the solutions that align with a
party platform, since neither party is effectively representing
the will of the people.
Finally, the plain and simple truth is that unless we can get
both support from both Republicans and Democrats, we
cannot hope to get our application passed in 34 states. We
are absolutely, completely, and unapologetically nonpartisan. Along with many US citizens, we don't like the way
either of the major parties govern, and we're much more
concerned with preserving the rights, liberty, and will of the
individual citizens, regardless of ideology.
This is the United States of America. We are the mixing pot
of races, religions, and philosophies. We believe that we are
stronger for it. Fearing the true democratic republic that

represents the whole US, not just one small faction of it, is
foolish. The blend of ideas will preserve, not destroy,
American freedom.
I hope that helps you answer these questions when they
come up! I'm sorry this email is so long and involved but I
want you to be well equipped to understand the background
to what we're doing.
Sincerely,
Eric Burk
Grassroots Coordinator
Citizens for Self Governance
Convention of States Project
Office: 540-441-7227
Well, at long last, a COS official not only confirmed COSs alliance with
progressives, but is excited about the idea. This alliance was well
known to those who were aware of the September 2011 Harvard Conference
on the Constitutional Convention www.conconcon.org which Meckler cosponsored. Hopefully those well-intentioned Patriots who are rightfully
concerned with the direction of this nation, and have been led to believe that
an Article V Convention is the only way to restore our country will renounce
its support of COS who have been promoting an Article V convention over
the past year. I suggest that they work with groups like The John Birch
Society www.jbs.org Defend Not Amend www.defendnotamend.org and
Eagle Forum www.eagleforum.org to stop all new calls for an Article V and
repeal all existing calls.