May 2012 Newsletter

Dear Mr. Weinstein,

Because your work has done nothing but lose ground, you have to be mentally
challenged to fail to recognize why the convention clause is part of the
Constitution. You say you revere it yet deny a feature of it meant to deal
with institutionalized corruption and theocratization of both society and
its military. You should be ashamed of yourself, unless of course this is a
conscious charade on your part. Please do call for a reminder of why you are
currently NOT an ally because you’re blocking out the solution. In other
words, objectively, you’re a bumbling, thinking you’re doing good works when
in actuality your actions only help to move us towards absolute despotism.

You’d be surprised what the look of the religious fanatics would be if you
talked convention.

(name withheld)

---

Dear (name withheld),

Mikey has read your email and asked me to respond on his and MRFF’s behalf.

Rather than cast aspersions upon your mental faculties, I will speak to your
displayed reading comprehension skills. The ‘convention clause’ you allude
to states:

Article. V.

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.

You are obviously recommending a solution in search of a relevant problem.
Your misplaced affinity for a convention displayed in your vituperative
email indicates a clear lack of comprehension of crucially applicable parts
of the U.S. Constitution in regards to ‘theocratization’ [sic] of the
military.

MRFF’s mission neither seeks nor requires an amendment to the Constitution
as written.

Article VI, Section 3 (in relevant part)

.but no religious Test shall ever be required as a
Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Amendment 1 (in relevant part)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.

MRFF’s mission requires us to demand that government officials and
representatives end their blatant malfeasance against our clients interests,
and in clear violation of their Constitutional oaths, and uphold the
existing language as written and intended. Your advice notwithstanding,
MRFF will continue to petition the Government in regards to this grievance
rather than seek superfluous constitutional amendments.

Your assertion that MRFF’s work has only lost ground, suggests that you
actually need to familiarize yourself with the substantial number of
instances of U.S. military policies and practices ended or amended in direct
response to our work since 2005. Heck!.rather than going back to 2005, I
can only ask: Did you even read the newsletter you contend to be responding
to? This particular assertion of non-efficacy by MRFF shows a glaring lack
of reading effort, comprehension, or both. I would also suggest that a
truly legitimate assessment of MRFF’s work accomplishments also take into
account our manpower & funding in comparison to the same that is arrayed
against MRFF’s mission and in advancement of “theocritization” [sic].

In closing, MRFF will not give up its defense of the basic rights of U.S.
military members by capitulating on the clear and concise existing language
of the U.S. Constitution. An action of capitulation clearly envision in
your condescending recommendation.

Have a great weekend and please honestly consider joining our fight rather
than trying to lead us down the proverbial ‘rabbit hole’,

Andy Kasehagen

---

Andy, you and Mikey know what the Constitution is, but don’t know how to use
it. “Theocratization” was a word made up for the moment, that you would zero
in on it hard as you did is typical of those who don’t know what they’re
talking about, and/or need to feel satisfied they’re correct by focusing on
something irrelevant to the argument.

The “relevant problem” has existed at least since the National Security Act
of 1947, and the banking interests and corporate powers which have kept the
military industrial complex in place since then–of which your group
addresses but one troublesome symptom–have done everything in their power
to prevent the Article V Convention. Why? Why would elites of the economic
and political worlds be against an open discussion of the people? Why don’t
you guys ponder that this weekend and get back to me.

(name withheld)

---

Dear (name withheld),

Your myopic focus on a all or nothing approach regarding a constitutional
convention reiterates the obvious love you have for hearing your own
‘voice’/opinion…and yet you have the gall to dismiss MRFF’s real-world
accomplishments affecting the lives of U.S. Military members.

I wish you luck with your attempt to bring about a convention. I on the
other hand will spend my weekend working with MRFF towards achieving
concrete results on behalf of our clients whose lives are being seriously
adversely affected today (i.e. right flipping now) rather than focusing on a
constitutional convention, that I may actually support on an intellectual
level, but does absolutely nothing for those in danger at the hands of
Theocrat wanna-bes (another ‘made up word’) today.

Again I ask you to step up and actually do something…a something that so
often results in death threats against Mikey and MRFF due to our efficacy…
and tilt at your constitutional convention ‘windmill’ in a non-priority
manner as the charming solution seeking a problem diversion that it truly
is.

Andy

---

Andy, you confuse objective principles with opinion. The convention clause
exists for a reason. Anything short of a convention will result in absolute
despotism–not because I say so, but because history and all we know to be
true about the human condition say so. You guys are working on a symptom,
the convention clause of Article V addresses the actual problem–a
government of institutionalized corruption. The convention clause embodies
our ultimate right as Americans, that of alter and abolish. If you think
anything short of exercising that right is going to deliver us from tyranny,
I have to say I’m not surprised. You don’t know what Article V is, not
because you lack intelligence, but because you don’t yet understand what
you’re looking at.

(name withheld)

---

Dear (name withheld),

I have no confusion whatsoever. My reasonably developed acquaintance with
the political philosophies of Plato, St. Augustine, Smith, Locke, Rousseau,
Montesquieu, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Jefferson and on…and on… In fact,
I have more than a sufficient background in political philosophies to easily
recognize intellectual self-love (sometimes crudely referred to as ‘mental
masturbation’) when I see it.

As such, I’ll leave you to it. Enjoy yourself, but please don’t feel the
need to share further. I wouldn’t want to disappoint you further in regards
to your obvious demand and un-requited need for validation of your perceived
intellectual worth. Try as you might…you won’t find it here.

Andy

p.s. Please enjoy your trip to my Iggy-Bin (…aren’t made up words
fun…). I’ve been told it’s really nice there this time of year.