Idaho Dispatch

Your Local Media Ally

Op-Ed: COS’s Haldorson Rips Idaho GOP State Chair Moon for her Opposition on Convention of States

By • January 17, 2024

I am disappointed about the way people treat each other in this country and our state. I even used to be this way, but I never lied to my fellow peeps. Now, it seems that everyone is agenda driven and seems to desire to appeal to the ignorant. Would you be offended if I told you people that do this seem to make it like you are stupid? Take the COS in general. They serve up more vitriol than I ever did. They are only interested in sharing their side and do not take kindly to debating the issue and some people, based on what they know either support it or don’t.

What I am finding out is that most of the people that support COS lack any understanding beyond COS talking points. They also don’t know enough about learning alternate perspectives that once known reveal the truth about the COS. I try not to speak badly about anyone, I still believe we can have friendly debates but some orgs like COS won’t have any part of it. Even Teresa, who I have tried to be friendly with won’t seem to have it. We can still disagree but for crying out loud the people deserve a dialogue not a one-sided propaganda campaign!

If JBS is the only organization that opposes the COS, aren’t people interested in why we oppose it? If Americans are only interested in one side, we may/will suffer unintended consequences. I hope I may share a few of those with you here, just know the list is long and easy to navigate once you see them.

First off, Haldorson says Moon adheres to a “False” narrative but won’t get into details. Then she calls it illogical and confusing, but also lacks details. This is what COS does at almost every turn. What is worse is that this “liberty person” seems to have launched general attacks against a GOP chair because she disagrees with COS? This, to me, was bad form and tells me that Haldorson doesn’t really think people deserve to know more than the rhetoric generated or maybe people don’t want to know. They, like so many, would just rather sling mud than talk about differences and details.

COS is not a good idea, and I would base my reputation on what I say. I would even go so far as to tell you why and let you decide. If you trust “experts” that are politicians and attorneys, you probably don’t know you are being played as part of an agenda they won’t even admit exists. Questions about the reality of this topic? Give me a try and decide for yourself.

If Soros was funding candidates in your local elections, would that bother you? What if I told you a group like COS is spending allegedly 80-100K on getting the people you elected out of office that oppose COS? Would that bother you? These are several firsthand accounts by your legislators by the way, I didn’t just make it up! Now, in speaking with many of them, they now support COS because they don’t want to be voted out. Even if this was an accusation, would it not be worth your consideration?

Let us just review and counter this op-ed, shall we?

First, a “runaway convention” is not a “false narrative,” it is a precedent. A runaway convention is the idea that delegates will exceed their commissions and therefore will/could exceed the stated “limitations” by state legislatures, which is an untruth. Delegates from the first convention exceeded their commissions in violation of Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, therefore it is a real possibility and since the convention is, even according to Robert Natelson, a stand-alone deliberative body and cannot be limited by the states.

Second, Moon’s position is far more logical than COS and if most Republicans were informed on this issue, it would strengthen the Republican Party rather than weaken it.

Third, if the GOP is more concerned with the platform than they are about the future of the country, that is a choice they get to make but Haldorson should recognize or prioritize the importance of what we are dealing with here. Is she advocating changes to the constitution like she sees with the platforms “living and breathing” history and if she operated counter to that platform what if she was right? (and she is). Party platforms change twice a year. Would Haldorson have made that statement when in previous years when the GOP opposed the convention in their platform? Is Moon’s oath of allegiance to support and defend the constitution or the GOP platform the priority, and don’t we need people that question everything or only those that tow a narrative? Moon should be appreciated for her position considering the amount of heat that surrounds her as the establishment wishes to get her out. Could Haldorson in this example alone be a closet establishment person against Dorothy Moon? I mean if she uses that analogy with others that don’t agree with her, can we not apply the same logic?

As for Moon’s position that counters such “experts” Michael Farris and Rob Natelson, and U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, sure it would be a cause to look into but who is to say these “scholars” are right? You would think they would be or could be, but what if they are not? The good thing about this issue, although it has become way too complicated, is that the arguments that are used to support a COS are easy to counter and spot inconsistencies.

The other important thing to know is that people should not condemn or support people as much as they should be concerned about issues. Yeah, it does help to have people with a general understanding of the constitution and have a consistent worldview because if you lack either, you could be easily persuaded to support such a thing. I know many good people that think this is a great idea, but they are in many cases extremely inconsistent in their arguments. In other words, “experts” may be a good source of consideration, but nothing would be better than people that are informed and are jealous guardians of liberty that not only study both sides of an issue but can admit when they are wrong. Is Glenn Beck now a leftist because he now opposes the COS? Is Antonin Scalia now a leftist because he opposed COS? Were you even aware of those examples?

As far as “expert research,” Haldorson doesn’t offer any details. From what I have seen, most are opinions based on who they are, and they have not demonstrated the safety and security of a convention because mock conventions were planned, and COS chose their delegates. This is lunacy to believe that a real convention would yield the same outcome.

I know this is a hard pill for many to swallow, which is probably why Haldorson wrote it, but Chairwoman Moon should be at direct odds with such people as Mark Levin, Ron DeSantis, Tucker Carlson, Ben Carson, Ben Shapiro, Colonel Allen West, and others because she is right, and they are either wrong or somehow benefit from supporting a COS, or both. We know DeSantis, for example, is getting subsidized to the tune of over 300k, if the IRS docs I read are accurate. Wouldn’t that be a cause for concern?

Haldorson continues to slam Moon, which seems to show her priorities: slamming Moon is more important than saving our country on one hand, while saying that COS will save our republic which is an unsubstantiated claim, a dream at best.

As for Haldorson’s comments that tout the highly misleading and tireless repetitive false COS narrative, I would suggest that she may be more interested in “appealing to the ignorant” on this topic to gain support because no one in their right mind would believe opposition for a thing to mean “if you are not with us, you are aligned with them.” That somehow people are not allowed to think critically, counter any narrative, align with the Democratic mobocracy, or believe that multiple sides can’t oppose/support a thing for different reasons. To state those that oppose COS “aligns with the left” is not only misleading, but also highly divisive and attempts to label others as something they are not which is more consistent with political party politics or tactics of the government than attempts concerned Americans wish to save our country.

It should also be said that while COS says no liberal organization supports an Article 5 convention, many leftist organizations do. It should also be said that COS believed that the federal government would never advocate for a convention as they currently talk about doing so.

No doubt, COS is a very well financed, very well-organized group, funding material for distribution but they only seem to placate to the legislature, not to educating the citizens. Afterall, it is our constitution we are talking about here; don’t you think people need to be better informed on both sides of the issue rather than just reading worthless misleading opinions and our positions on issues (like this one)? The only reason I wrote it is because op-eds like that need to be challenged, especially when people deserve to know better.

For every claim they make, you should desire to know the counter to that statement. The cool part is that exposing COS for what they say is easy if you know your constitution and have a consistent worldview. If you don’t, the constitution may not be the problem (and isn’t), that problem just may be those that don’t know better. The great thing for those that don’t know is they can learn, but they have to really want to because the truth may not always be easy to accept. But it beats having to constantly cover up a lie.

Disagree? let’s talk about it! I am willing when so many others are not. What does that say?

This Op-Ed was submitted by Tom Munds and originally published on Op-Eds do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of those at the Idaho Dispatch.

Amazon Outlet

Tags: Antonin Scalia, Article V, Ben Carson, Ben Shapiro, Colonel Allen West, Con Con, Constitutional Convention, Convention of States, COS, Dorothy Moon, Glenn Beck, JBS, John Birch Society, Mark Levin, Ron DeSantis, Teresa Haldorson, Tom Munds, Tucker Carlson

30 thoughts on “Op-Ed: COS’s Haldorson Rips Idaho GOP State Chair Moon for her Opposition on Convention of States

  1. Got to love the deep and nuanced response given. The response given by Teresa was adolescent at best.

    “You’re not going along with these mainstream conservative talking heads saying we should do this. That means you’re naughty!” I’m summarizing one of Teressa’s talking points.

    As I said the first time, if Teressa knows Article 5 is law, then she should know Article 6 clause 2 is also law.

    Nullification is the solution.

  2. Certainly seems to me that COS and Ranked Choice Voting are the cases belli of the deep state in their attacks on what is left of our rights. Thankfully we have Dorothy Moon and Raul Labrador.

  3. We have a constitution which is being violated by traitors in and around DC. A COS doesn’t change the evil intentions of the people who are getting away with treason with the cooperation of the news sources and big tech.

  4. If politicians and their minions want it, I’m against it. Good on Dorothy Moon for standing her ground. Now maybe she can work on getting real conservatives in our legislature.

  5. Someone needs to explain “Ranked Choice” to me in pros and cons in layman terms. All I see is everyone sidestepping and going around the basis for it.

  6. Very well written. Anyone with the ability to think and reason knows that history can and does repeat it’s self. A COS of today could easily have the same result as to what happened to the Articles of Confederation. The problem is – we no longer have a majority of the people with the same ideals and beliefs as did the Founders of our Republic. Who would write the document at the COS? Would it be those with true American values like Dorthy Moon or would it be the Democrats/socialists/communists/Rinos? Who would determine the values of our Idaho representatives? Would the representatives have true American values or would the representatives be socialists/communists/Rinos? The people of Idaho have consistently proven their lack of capability to choose people with true American values as their representatives in our government, so would it be it different when sending representatives for a COS? Probably not. Therefore, that is just another simple reason why a COS would not be beneficial for American citizens. Gerald

  7. Gotta love people who complain about people arguing issues saying their statements are unclear when they refuse to give specifics as well.

    Here’s the primary challenging question I have for anyone who opposes a Convention of States: HOW ELSE ARE WE GOING TO TAKE BACK OUR NATION?

    Answer that question, please. You’re not going to do it by relying on the Courts. We’ve already seen that Gorsuch, Coney-Barrett, and Kavanaugh are pretty squishy on issues of fundamental rights and our Chief Justice is more than willing to write contradictory word salad to justify progressive positions such as the ACA.

    Look at the national Legislature! You have 50% Democrats and another 20% RINO’s. You’re not going to get national concealed-carry reciprocity. They can’t even agree on voting laws requiring ID!

    And let’s look at the disaster our Executive Branch has turned into where the FBI and DOJ are willing to harass ANYONE who opposes their narratives and jail them in DC without a speedy trial?

    If you oppose a Convention of States, please give me an alternative. I’ll wait.

    1. Check out the 10th Amendment Center and consider getting on board with the nullification movement. It’s slower, but surer and safer, than having to deal with a bunch of leftist activists in a con-con.

      1. I don’t have any objections to nullification, but the history of nullification in the past 100 years is almost non-existent. Given the amount of national money used to fund local elections, I seriously doubt that local politicians have the backbone to execute nullification. Though I’d love to be surprised.

    2. One solution is TERM LIMITS. You don’t need an amendment or COS for that. VOTE THEM OUT! That is what WE can do. We have been given TERM LIMITS by having elections for our legislators. Sadly, people rarely use elections to take out those who VIOLATE their oath to “protect and defend the United States Constitution.” It has always been there — USE IT.

      The problem with the Article V Convention is that it was put in the Constitution to “fix any issues” with a particular portion of the Constitution. It was NEVER intended to be used to make new amendments. There are specific instructions for that. I have read what Antonin Scalia said about a COS and he opposed it. Basically, what he said was that he’d fear what could happen TODAY, because of the kind of people we have in our legislature. I agree.

      1. I have mixed feelings about term limits, but the sad fact is that they’ve been brought up several times before and the Legislature has tabled the bill every time. (As an aside, I think an almost bigger problem is that many former legislators to to work as lobbyists.)

        “… the Article V Convention … was NEVER intended to be used to make new amendments.”

        From Article V: “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.”

    3. Blair, I appreciate your comment and will take your question to heart as I try to with every question. To address your first comment, it is important to know I have studied this issue intently for over a decade and as much as I have tried to bring attention to it, few, if anyone seems interested and my phone almost never rings, no interest on social media, etc. Second, I have found that as much as I believe details are important, I can only offer them when people have interest. To be honest people, overall seem to like the emotional banter between opposing positions rather than the substantive nature of the argument. Additionally, I have found with all of the attacks by others against people like me, I have found that all I can do is defend my position encouraging others to pay attention without making the articles 4 pages long. Does the average person have an attention span that long? Anyone that knows me knows I can talk and pretty well defend any claim I make. Tell me, would you like me to reveal the 12 years of information I have in a post where we haven’t even set the proper playing field for discourse? I am all about facts, not about bs rhetoric but when I need to meet people where they are to get them to be concerned, I need to meet them where they are. This isn’t to say anyone is stupid, what it is saying is that I feel like I know where people are and what most expect. Although I expect people to talk facts, you can see from posts we are, for the most part not there yet. As for your question about “How else we are going to take back our nation…” I will answer that emotional question, the problem is you may not like the answer. Please recognize the difference between you asking a question and me answering it just not the way you may hope I do. First one way to save the nation is not to try to fix something that isn’t broken, misusing a provision in that constitution and allowing an organization to mislead you when most openly admit the constitution isn’t the problem! Another way may be to not open up any possibility for the constitution to be re-written or changed by delegates that won’t be you and me. So, would you try to fix something that isn’t broken or use a tool meant for one job for another job? Third, maybe if the constitution isn’t the problem, we should ask what is? The answer isn’t getting rid of the politicians as much as it is those that elected these people to office. What this means is that if the people are lazy or ignorant, they get the government they deserve. I could go on for hours if you have the time, but I won’t ever walk away from a question, even if I don’t yet know it, I will and will address it. You want answers? Email me or text me what they are because this issue is far too complex to answer this all fully in a reply to an article but make no mistake, I feel I can and will to anyone that wants to know. I am not one to back away from a challenge. Are you challenging me? Then let’s get after it! You can contact me at 208-861-6405 or I am expecting to hear from you and others with questions.

      1. If you’re the same Tom Munds who calls in to the Kevin Miller show, I’m more than happy to engage with you. I admire the fervor you share. I doubt our differences are anything more than path, not end goal.

  8. Honestly, there would be no need for COS is those elected actually did what they should be doing (and say) instead of filling their pockets and trying to micromanage our lives. We have those running who CLAIM to be conservative etc who end up not. How often did you see our reps at pro life functions and then they vote against that stance? It’s all for show. Folks need to remember these elected officials think you are stupid, and most of them just tolerate you since they need your vote to keep in power.Politicians need to be looked at as OUR tools, when they fail to do the work the tool is intended for, they need to be tossed aside for a newer tool. Do not get this false idea they are for you, they are not. People look at COS as a way to do something to try and turn the tide as our country seems to be failing faster and faster. Why? Because our elected officials have failed miserable at their jobs.

  9. A COS, today, could easily go the wrong way and establish Socialism by the left usurping the process. I agree with Moon– it’s dangerous in this political climate and ill advised.

  10. If you want to see the lying and deceitful tactics used by The John Birch Society against an Article V convention, check out my videos exposing them. I have proven Robert Brown wrong five times now, and he owes me the $10,000.00 for the bounty he offered to anyone that can show that one delegate at the 1787 Federal Convention knew they had the authority to adopt the Constitution.

    1. Ken, thank you for your comment. I also appreciate the 66-year-old smear about JBS “tactics.” It sounds kind of like you may be disgruntled or maybe want to send traffic to your video channel, which is fine, but JBS does not use “Lying and deceitful” tactics, our record for those that know them know their record of truth is unparalleled for as long as they have existed. I think the best course of action may be to openly debate him with the facts. I have confirmed a Zoom meeting with him on February 8th n the Harsh realities of a COS, perhaps you will be bold enough to email me your contact info and we will set up a debate. calling someone a liar is pretty stiff. I think in the interest of public discourse the people deserve the debate. What say you? I am also interested in any back and forth you have, not on who is lying but on the facts. I also may think you may have issues with JBS in general so hopefully you can prove the claim that they are liars and deceivers because if you should be discredited. Call me or email, let’s talk.

  11. VIDEO: The Hypocrisy of The John Birch Society and Their Betrayal of Liberty:

    Evidence proves that JBS advocated for an Article V convention in the 1960s and 70s! It was one of their top 5 goals and they were COS before COS ever existed because they were trying to limit the power of the federal government by having the state legislatures apply for an Article V convention to propose The Liberty Amendment.

  12. VIDEO: The John Birch Society Betrays the Pro-Life Movement and Their Very Own Moral Code!

    The John Birch Society flipped from being a proponent of the Article V convention to opposing it in the 1970s to prevent the state legislatures from overturning Roe v Wade by proposing a Right to Life Amendment!

    1. Kenn, now you are showing your true colors it seems. You must have deep issues with JBS because your comments here are plain wrong and I know they are, but we are and have been the whipping boy for those that believe the communist propaganda campaign from the 1960’s. That is a hard nut to crack. Pertaining to the subject at hand and that helps discredit you is that JBS NEVER flipped from supporting an Article 5 convention that I know. We just didn’t support it. What I do know, is that if you are like others, you are referring to the liberty amendment which we did support, in other words, we supported the amendment, not a convention. The other thing to consider is that there are details and confusion in that somehow JBS is like the left because we won’t acknowledge Article 5. That too is a lie. JBS recognizes Article 5 just fine, what we also recognize is that there seem to be no considerations of the dangers of such a convention. In all I have read from them, it has always been about warning people about the dangers of calling for a convention and about wolves in sheep’s clothing coming in as saviors thinking the best way to take our country back is to call for a convention misusing article 5, but not call it an article 5 convention, and open it up to make changes when the constitution isn’t even the problem. I would take your feelings about JBS out of it for a bit and focus on the substantive side of the equation and if you think you have evidence, not your opinions on video, email to me. If I need to make an apology, I surely will. I would even provide a statement, that is included in our monthly bulletins that explain it more clearly. Did you ever get those bulletins? Were you ever a member or are you perhaps like so many non-Christians for example that like to lean on our worldview to try to make their case without biblical understanding? My point is that it is hard to take a position without knowing ours. I would strongly encourage anyone to not make this as much about JBS as looking at the different perspectives of both support or opposition of a convention because whether JBS ever shines for you or not, at the end of the day, we should do well to learn to play the issue not the man or the organization. Seriously, email or call me. I will also await your call. If the people want clarification, I will and have always wanted to do my part even if I am wrong.

  13. Doing the best research I can, I am against calling a COS. The reason is that there appears to be no rules to prevent a runaway convention and the loss of important amendments such as the second amendment. Based on this, we can guarantee that Commiecrats will try to remove amendments important to our freedoms.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *