Wiki_QA__##

Title: JBS, the doppelganger for CNN

Original CoS Document (slug): jbs-the-doppelganger-for-cnn

Login Required to view? No

Created: 2021-01-28 15:52:17

Updated: 2025-02-18 23:27:04

Published: 2021-01-29 00:00:00

Converted: 2025-04-14T21:09:28.486597964

A doppelganger is a German word that literally translates to “double walker” or “double goer.” A doppelganger isn't someone who just resembles another but is an exact double, right down to the way they walk, talk, and cloak themselves.

Any sharp mind knows instinctively that CNN is a propaganda factory, fabricating lie after lie. Likewise, any sharp mind knows instinctively that the JBS is a propaganda factory fabricating lie after lie.

CNN is the propaganda arm for those swamp rats, who are transforming a free an independent America into a global adult daycare where everyone is subjected to a false reality 24/7/365.

The establishment ruling caste, better known to the educated as a totalitarian regime, continually rewrites history via their propaganda arm. As George Orwell illustrated, the most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.

Doesn’t that sound familiar? That is exactly what the JBS is doing: rewriting our founding history. Sharp minds don’t fall for the duplicitous false narratives they fabricate.

Initially, I thought the JBS was marketing fear by duplicating CNN’s hyper-dramatic fanaticism.

But I have come to realize that the JBS is selling excuses under the guise of fear. They specialize in rewriting our founding history and have employed a few con men with a superiority complex to travel to state capitols and prey on unsuspecting legislators.

This is all done to obstruct a primary constitutional tool of the state legislatures: calling a convention to hold the federal government in check.

Sad, isn’t it?

Quite frankly, I am nauseated by their duplicity and feel it is time to expose their dishonorable character.

The Proof

<HTML><ol></HTML> <HTML><li></HTML><HTML></HTML>Out one side of their mouth, the far left and the JBS both claim that our Constitution was created illegally by tyrants who usurped powers. Out the other side of their mouth: “But the Constitution is too precious to amend.”
<HTML></HTML>

Truth: The general convention of 1787 was held outside the purview of the Articles of Confederation. It was Virginia who made the formal invitation. Virginia's resolution was the first to state the specified time, place, subject matter, and limitations of the convention, as well as to explicitly urge other states to participate. So the honor of calling the Constitutional Convention goes to Virginia, not to the Confederation Congress. The Confederation Congress had no authority to call a convention, and it exercised no power over the convention whatsoever. Even New York and Massachusetts, who opposed the convention, had no authority over the seven states which already had agreed to participate under terms granting the convention wide powers. New York delegates went home; they did not sign the Constitution and neither did Rhode Island. Furthermore, they did not have to accept the new ratifying process and they were not forced to hold a state ratifying convention, but they did both. Lastly, the Constitution has been amended 27 times. Case Closed. Such a mute point since an Article V convention for proposing amendments IS held under the purview of our Constitution which permanently replaced the Articles of Confederation and unlike the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution created a true government for limited purposes.

<HTML></li></HTML> <HTML><li></HTML><HTML></HTML>Out one side of their mouth: “A convention will rewrite the entire Constitution. If the Framers did it back then, it can happen again.” Out of the other side of their mouth: “It is up to the people to hold the federal government accountable.”<HTML></HTML>

Truth: Once more for the JBS’ers in the back: Article V is in our Constitution. It is one of only seven articles, so it is safe to say that it was not accidently plopped in there for no purpose. As a matter of fact after fact, it was placed into the Constitution, because Madison himself introduced a resolution for state legislatures to amend the Constitution in the Virginia Plan.

<HTML></li></HTML> <HTML><li></HTML><HTML></HTML>Out of one side of their mouth comes: “We need to enforce the Constitution we have.” Out the other side of their mouth comes: “Article V is too dangerous to enforce.”
<HTML></HTML>

Truth: In order for the Constitution and the republic to remain structurally sound and functional is to enforce the entire Constitution. Article V is another check and balance—one that has been abdicated by the states for far too long. The real danger to Americans’ liberty is palpably obvious, so stop the gas-lighting.

<HTML></li></HTML> <HTML><li></HTML><HTML></HTML>Out of one side of their mouth comes: “Madison was against a convention of states.” Out the other side of their mouth comes: “In Federalist 40, Madison said…And in Federalist 10 Madison said…”
<HTML></HTML>

Truth: The Federalist Papers is the best collection of essays on the government formed by a general convention of states, that was called by, drumrolllllll please: Virginia, and Madison was appointed as a delegate as well as one of three authors of The Federalist Papers. Madison also wrote the Virginia Plan which included: “13. Resolved, that provision ought to be made for the amendment of the Articles of Union, whensoever it shall seem necessary; and that the assent of the National Legislature ought not to be required thereto. Madison was not opposed to a convention of the states prior to the enactment of the Constitution, nor was he opposed to a convention for proposing amendments after its enactment; all he ever wanted was practical patience and time-tested experience before holding a convention for proposing amendments. Besides, an Article V convention didn't exist until the Constitution was enacted and in force, JBS.

<HTML></li></HTML> <HTML><li></HTML><HTML></HTML>Out of one side of their mouth: “Congress, not the states, will control the convention.” Out of the other side of their mouth comes: “We need to hold Congress to their enumerated and limited powers.”
<HTML></HTML>

Truth: Article V grants only temporary enumerated powers to:

• Congress

• State legislatures

• State conventions

• Convention for proposing amendments

The words of Article V are clear:

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

Thus, Article V has four parts:
> • Proposal: Congress and the States have equal authority

• Ratification of any proposed amendment requires 3/4 approval State Legislatures or State ratifying conventions.

• Selection of mode of ratification: Congress can only choose mode of ratification, it does not control.

• Limits on the amendment power: Limits placed on Congress and States

Courts hold that meanings in Article V are fixed by historical practice. “Convention” is a temporary meeting (not a legislature), to address one or more political problems. An amendments convention is a “Convention of the States.”

There is plenty of historical evidence for truth-seekers:

• Founding-era legislative resolutions

• Other Founding-era documents

• The first Article V application: “the constitution hath presented an alternative, by admitting submission to a convention of the States” (Virginia legislature, Nov. 14, 1788)

• A statement from the U.S. Supreme Court: “. . . by a convention of the states, under constitutional sanction. . ” -Smith v. Union Bank, 30 U.S. 518 (1831)

Convention of States supporters are the people truly defending liberty for all Americans. But liberty cannot survive with a void of historical facts. Liberty cannot be maintained if America loses the stories of our past. The memory of America's past needs to be carried from generation to generation, so America can become all that it is meant to be.

Principles We Promote

Liberty under law and order, personal responsibility, individual rights, freedom of thought and speech, federalism, limited government, separation of powers, checks and balances, and fiduciary government.

So, with a discerning ear, listen closely to what the legislators and the John Birch Society are truly saying to you. Are they appealing to these principles, or inspiring others to stand erect against the spread of tyranny? No.

What are they standing against? They obstruct the very people who are taking a firm stand against the establishment tyrants.

The legislators need to ask the men who bled at Valley Forge, Gettysburg, Pearl Harbor, Vietnam, and Iraq, if freedom was worth fighting for, bleeding for, sacrificing for, and dying for.

They need to ask if nullification merely provides an excuse to kick the proverbial can, or if this extra-constitutional, secessionist tactic will maintain a perpetual union.

Let's take a quick look:

Nullification only affects single issues.
It only aids the citizens of the states which use it.
It can only be used on issues that directly impose on the states (how do you nullify an omnibus spending bill, national debt, or undeclared acts of war?)
It does not change the law. The federal government remains free to enforce the law with its own resources (as with Real ID).
It has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
It can be repealed by the next state legislature.

To close, I will leave this little gem for everyone to ponder for the rest of the day:

“It could not be known to the framers of the constitution, whether there was too much power given by it or too little; they therefore prescribed a mode by which Congress might procure more, if in the operation of the government it was found necessary; and they prescribed for the states a mode of restraining the powers of the government, if upon trial it should be found they had given too much.” -Samuel Jones (a New York ratifier)

Remember that one primary purpose of our Constitution was to oblige elected officials to follow rules that would protect individual liberty. It was not a document to suppress the people.

State legislators have the authority in Article V to oblige the swamp to follow the rules that protect liberty.

#|LEADER_POSITION_FORM{leader_position:volunteer_activist}|#