Continental Congres

[Robert Rowland]

Frederick,

 

I have a contact with the Continental Congress, in fact he is speaking at our next meeting on July 17th, I will call him in the morning with the question you posted.

[Chairman's Committee]

Sounds great, I didn't think to contact one of our 3 delegates that went.

[Robert Rowland]

He may be one of them, his name is Terry Dodd, he lives in Parker. I'm at the office and don't have his contact information with me at the moment, but will in morning if you need me to call or email him, I could cc you in with my email to him if you like? Are you going to be at the leadership meeting tomorrow evening?, if so maybe we'll get a chance to meet.



Fredrick Lindner said:

Sounds great, I didn't think to contact one of our 3 delegates that went.

[W. Branstetter]

Yes, Robert, if you could inquire of your contacts it would be very helpful.

The quotation from Fredrick's e-mail inquiry appears in roughly 30 blogs, facebook, myspace sites from Google search. The most "official" looking is in a "Letters to Leaders"--letter to a governor--where a letter is posted that includes the two sentences in question (link below). The purpose of the referenced web site is explained in the "Who We Are" link at the top of the page. Whether this might be the source for your quotation is unknown, but the forum at the link would still raise questions for factual basis for content.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?id=31791&le...

Further discussion may be needed.

[Chairman's Committee]

((Some information that was passed to me from one of our delegates at the CC2009, Terry Dodd.))



First of all, everyone needs to understand the severe danger of a Constitutional Convention (“Con Con”). A Con Con has MORE power than a joint session of Congress in that a Con Con has the AUTHORITY and POWER to REWRITE the constitution. You see a Con Con is a convention of the States. The call of ¾ of the States is required so 38 States is the threshold. To my knowledge either 36 or 37 States have issued a call. However, several States have rescinded their call. Since there is no express provision for a call to be rescinded, those desiring a Con Con hold to the thinking that a call cannot be rescinded. The initial calls were issued years ago when we had a completely different political environment.



My mantra on this is “Defend, NOT Amend”. Not that there aren’t some things that could be improved, but the risk of losing our constitutional republic and federation of States is astronomical. WARNING: the dictionaries since 1973 have a propagandized definition of federal and federation. I mean the meaning of the word prior to the Civil War (see attached excerpt from The Illusion of Freedom). I am quite pleased with the organic Constitution (through the Bill of Rights or first 12 Amendments). We must deny and or nullify the fraudulent ratifications of the 14th, 15th, 16th & 17th Amendments. See http://www.rangeguide.net/subvert.htm and http://georgiaheritagecouncil.org/site2/commentary/davis_14thAmendm... for a warm up on that subject. I’ve attached a copy of Dyett v. Turner for your reading pleasure. Too bad we are subject to government schools that don’t (won’t) teach any of this and pulpits that have been unlawfully silenced.



I hope you can see why I would avoid a Con Con at all cost, especially with today’s political environment. Some idiots in Virginia and Florida have been pushing for a Con Con. Some of my friends in VA managed to squelch the idea, but Florida has either recently issued a call or is in danger of issuing a call.



That’s what I know at the moment. There is good information on the internet about this if you are willing to do some research.



Let me know if you have any further questions.



Best regards,



Terry Dodd - CO

Vice President

Third Continental Congress

303-909-1166



"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."
Albert Einstein