Another wackadoodle weekend in The Union

What would The Union be without its political wackadoodles? Few fit the bill more than Judi Caler on Nevada City,  co-founder of Reclaiming Our American Rights (ROAR).

We were first introduced to Judi when she showed up at a Board of Supervisors meeting with Barry Pruett, Russ and George and the other hard right and tea party kids when the County hired our business to manage the tourism website in 2011.

As YubaNet reported: “Judi, who introduced her self as a co-founder of Reclaiming Our American Rights (ROAR), proceeded to paint a scenario melding First 5 of Nevada County, Occupy Wall Street, the Constitution and the takeover by a ‘one-world government’ as cause and effect of the contract. Referring to Shannon Pelline as ‘married to a well-known blogger, I wouldn’t appreciate my tax dollars used to promote his views.’ She also reminded the BOS that ‘three of you are up for election and the people are watching.” (The BOS voted 5-0 to award the contract to our business. We managed the contract through 2015 and received a wonderful letter of thanks from the board).

Fast forward to 2017 and Judi has a “Other Voices” in the weekend Union titled “Convention of States adopts ‘Newspeak’ to sell the ‘Con-Con'”

Huh? It begins: “In the novel, ‘1984,’ George Orwell’s unsettling prophecy of a totalitarian society, Newspeak was the official language of Oceania.”

The “Con Con” or the “Can Can”?

“Shamelessly, Mark Meckler and his legal operatives at the Convention of States Project turned to Newspeak. Accordingly, Meckler told senators at a February 25, 2015 Nebraska committee hearing that they’ll direct their ‘commissioners’ by text messaging during the convention because legally, commissioners are equivalent to hired insurance agents!”

I read her column a few times and still have little idea what she is talking about. I was relieved to read this, however: “This article was abridged by the author from her original which includes documentation.” I can only imagine what that reads like!

What do our out-of-town visitors think when they pick up The Union on the weekend and read about the “Con Con,” let alone those who might want to move here? lol.

In honor of the “Con Con,” here’s the “Can Can”:

Author: jeffpelline

Jeff Pelline is a veteran editor and award-winning journalist - in print and online. He is publisher of Sierra FoodWineArt magazine and its website Jeff covered business and technology for The San Francisco Chronicle for 12 years, and he was a founding editor and Editor of CNET News for eight years, among other positions. Jeff has a bachelor's degree from UC Berkeley and a master's from Northwestern University. His hobbies include sailing, swimming, and trout fishing in the Sierra.

14 thoughts on “Another wackadoodle weekend in The Union”

  1. I think I know what she is saying in her interesting way. She is saying that the adocates of a ‘constitutional convention’ (like Meckler) have shifted their messaging to a ‘convention of states’ to assuage the fears of conservatives who believe that holding such a convention could threaten the Constitution itself. I believe that what Ms. Caler fears is a “runaway convention.”

    In short, she is exposing a crack between the super paranoid bat-shit crazy ultra extreme right who believes that every change is an attempt to impose Masonic, One World, Illuminati controlled controlled government, and the extreme right wing who believes that if they have control they can shift America back to some neo-liberal, laissez faire, Gilded Age, Friedmanesque utopia (that never existed to begin with.)

    Amazingly, I think her fear is largely correct–that once such a ‘convetion’ is opened, one cannot control where the delegates go on issues, and thus it represents an existential prima facie threat to our existing Constitution. It is incumbent upon those proposing such a convention to prove that appropriate safeguards are in place to contain the scope of the convention, and I don’t see a Constitutional way to do that.

    Article V of the U.S. Constitution empowers us to call a constitutional convention if two-thirds of the states request one. Article V is mandatory, not discretionary, it states, “shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments.” We have no other guidelines or rules about how such a convetion would be conducted…..are people appointed by the states, are they citizens or elected officials and thus accountable to the voters….would proposed amendments be approved by the convention by majority or supermajority vote….voted on by the states through their represnetatives or the people…..what would the rules of debate be? There are no rules or guidelines.

    Also note that the language in the Constitution states “amendments” in the plural form…most legal scholars agree that a Constitutional interpretation of this would likely mean that neither the Courts nor Congress could constrain the usses raised.

    There is a reason why although Article V exists it has never been exercised–no one knows what the rules would be and it would cause un-imaginable chaos in our system. It is a process that would almost ensure years of court and legal challenges and frozen governance at the national level in the interim as uncertainty over the basic rules hung in the blance. It would also be an incredible risk for private sector business and investment as no investor could be certain that Constitutional contraints hold true, and thus there would be no certainty over regulatory or tax structures, access to markets or interstae commerce .

    Finally, ratification problems exist….Constitutional amendment rules still hold…it takes 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment. Do we honestly think we could get 3/4 of the states to agree on anything controversial?

    A Constitutional Convention is a conservatarian fantasy in Constitutional clothing. In short this is why Meckler and his friends want it….they want stasis, to freeze everything, to hold off the demographic and cultural changes occuring under their feet that fear will shift power to people they don’t like.

  2. Thanks Steve. I think this sums it up well: a crack between “the super paranoid bat-shit crazy ultra extreme right” and the “extreme right.” (BTW, I fixed the typo).

      1. It’s pretty incredible. Almost as soon as that crap went up it was vividly reduced to the BS it was…But Todd, the ever vigilant researcher stuns us with his quick incisive mind. He is a caricature of himself, if that’s even possible. The stupidity and arrogance is so pronounced I can only assume it is also physically painful. Hope he has Obamacare.

    1. And isn’t it typical that morons like Todd complain about all the giveaways while sucking at the teat of ameriaka for Social Security, Medicare. Just like that worthless piece of horse flesh Ayn Rand. These people are all talk. They are worthless little weasels. And Trump is their God.

  3. Fellow Wackadoodle George Rebane calls Caler’s piece “excellent.” Of course, consider the source. The master of turgid and out of touch. And to borrow a phrase these same folks like to direct at FUE’s (former Union editors), Rebane is a “FUC,” or a former Union columnist. lol.

  4. “complain about all the giveaways while sucking at the teat of ameriaka for Social Security, Medicare”. Sorry, but I disagree with you on this. I was forced to pay (and my employers were also required to pay) for Social Security and Medicare during most of my entire working life. I, and my employers paid, over $75,000 into the Medicare fund alone before I began to receive Medicare insurance. It is NOT a government giveaway, I am entitled to Medicare (and Social Security) because I PAID for it.

    1. Ben,
      I think you missed the bigger point: Complaining about the costs of all these programs and then benefitting from them. To my knowledge, you were not complaining about these programs. As to whether they are “giveaways,” that’s a separate issue. We all pay into these programs, and in some cases, we get more than we give.

    2. You misunderstood my sarcasm. “Sucking on the teat of the country” are not MY words. they come from several congressmen on the Right, for their own various reasons, while also letting the government use the funds as their own piggy bank for loans they would now like to forget about. I’m very pro SS and Medicare. I also have paid in for years. My point is many who take these benefits decry them at the same time as being “welfare” or “entitlements”. Ayn Rand decried SS and Medicare vehemently. Yet she accepted and depended on both later in her life. She epitomizes the philosophy of selfishness that is, in actuality, pathological.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s