Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust Embedding Themselves Deeper Into Our Local Government?

Whenever dealing with the Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust or any of their other affiliated groups, one always has to ask if you are dealing with a bunch of heathens to begin with as these groups all use Pagan or Devil worship symbols in all of their organizations.  But they claim it's just decorative and has no meaning.  Sure it doesn't.  And the Earth isn't round either, it's flat.  Well here is yet another one of their groups we found.

CENTER for SELF – GOVERNANCE

GLOUCESTER, VA

Level 1 – Foundations in Self Governance 

 Welcome to the Center for Self Governance.  This Level  1 course is designed to introduce the concepts surrounding  self- governance, civic authority and bring everyone up to a common level of knowledge regarding our role in exercising our civic responsibilities and authority.

“As citizens we often lack the knowledge, skills, and ability to articulate our desire to make the policy changes necessary to restore our government to its proper role. Current liberty-minded civics training only teach theory. We teach concrete ways, through educational training and practical exercises, how to influence legislators and policy.”  www.tncsg.org

This course is foundational and will lay the groundwork necessary to successfully implement the lessons learned in future courses.

Dress comfortably;  The class will decide which nearby restaurant to order lunch from. Your workbook is included with your payment. Prior Level 1 students may audit the class for $10.

Register  here:   http://www.tncsg.org/pick-a-class/

If you have trouble registering  –  Please, let Ruth Litschewski know you are coming and you may pay at the door (Cash or check please)   ruth1860@gmail.com

SUMMARY

LOCATION	Gloucester Main Street PRESERVATION TRUST, 6894 Main Street, Gloucester, VA 23061
HOST:	Ruth Litschewski	ruth1860@gmail.com
DATE:	6.20.14
TIME:	9-5:30
LEVEL:	1
LINK:	http://www.tncsg.org/?p=1680
TRAINER:	Brian Bollmann

Took place on June 20, 2014 from 9:00 am to 5:30 pm

Gloucester Main Street PRESERVATION TRUST, 6894 Main Street, Gloucester, VA 23061

USD 50.00

http://www.tncsg.org/classes/2014/06/1680/

The above link is to the website where the information posted above can be found.

Now the Center For Self Government looks like a decent organization.  Our question is, is the Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust involved with this in order to train minions to gain more control over our local government?  Having watched these folks for some time, we would highly suggest that this is the case.  Anyone want the Golden Cafe worshiped at the courthouse?  It seems like we already have on Board of Supervisor who worships at that alter.  He could not wait to get on their board.  That BoS member happens to be Ashley Chriscoe.  

  Board of Directors 2014:

Chairman:  Breckenridge Ingles 
Vice Chairman: Ralph Jackson  
Secretary:  Robert Hatten
Other Board Members: Theresa Stavens, Ashley Chriscoe, William Walker, Joe Fary, James Dudley, Rudy Heinatz
Counsel to the Board:  Alan Diamonstein, Lindsey Carney (non-voting)
Executive Director:  Jennifer E. Crittenden (non-voting)
http://mspt.org/about.html  Link to the About Us page showing Ashley Chriscoe on the MSPT board as listed above.

Counsel to the Board, Alan Diamonstein, has some interesting ties in a number of areas with these folks all over Gloucester county.

Take a good look at that website and ask yourself why anyone would do what they are claiming to do?  Looks more like a cover for taking over areas of local business, government and ways to get inside people's pockets who are unsuspecting.  Cavet Emptor.  Getting involved in anything these folks do?  Your better off spending your money on a Disney Vacation,  It's more realistic and infinitely more enjoyable.

The above picture in the top left hand corner, we show how the MSPT uses a hidden pentagram in their symbol.  Hidden in plain sight.  But it's just a design element and the Earth is flat too.  Trust these folks as far as you would trust Satan himself is our own opinion.

Related articles

• McAuliffe Administration to Local Divisions of Social Services: Same-Sex Spouses can now Legally Adopt
• Commonwealth Taking Additional Steps to Safeguard Against Ebola - SPREAD THE FEAR!
• Morality Beyond Same Sex Marriage; Morality? It's Now Gone.
• Undermining The Constitution A HISTORY OF LAWLESS GOVERNMENT (Part 13)
• Individualism & Capitalism vs. Collectivism & Monopolies
• Gainsco Racing, Corvette Race Car As Seen In Gloucester, VA

Individualism & Capitalism vs. Collectivism & Monopolies

Marxists Internet Archive (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Most people have no clue what the above titles words mean.  Most people have no real clue what Capitalism is nor do most people have a clue what real socialism or communism is either.  You may think you do, but do you really?  This video is one of the best sources for defining Capitalism for what it is really supposed to be and not what most consider it to be as well as what socialism really is as opposed to what most people think it is.

  Another piece we found on the Internet Archive.  We doubt this would be found on YouTube and if it is, chances are it gets very little views.  Most people do not want to know the meanings of these words.  We prefer real capitalism which unfortunately is dead.

Related articles

• The Problem with Championing Individuality
• The Collectivization of Agriculture in Communist Eastern Europe
• Rightful Liberty-Focus and Pitfalls
• FEDERALIST PAPERS No. 49. Method of Guarding Against the Encroachments of Any One Department of Government by Appealing to the People Through a Convention.
• Commonwealth Taking Additional Steps to Safeguard Against Ebola - SPREAD THE FEAR!
• Morality Beyond Same Sex Marriage; Morality? It's Now Gone.

9 TRILLION Dollars Missing from "Federal" Reserve - Fed Inspector Clueless

Various Federal Reserve Notes, c.1995. Only the designs of the $1 and $2 (the latter not pictured) are still in print. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

30.000 dollars are missing from your personal bank account - that is, the one the money in your pocket (check 'em; "Federal Reserve Notes") is based upon. The "cop" you thought was watching your $30,000 dollars says... she doesn't know where it is. And frankly, she isn't even looking!

Fantasy? If only it were.

This is your life now.

For all Americans put together, that adds up to 9 TRILLION missing dollars. That's YOUR $30.000 added up with everyone else. Where did it go?

The so-called "Federal Reserve" is neither federal, nor is it a reserve. It is rather an ultra-secret private company which has illegally been put in charge of your money. What are they doing with your money? After many years, someone in government finally decided to take a look... and that is what was found! Quickly the faux Fed clammed up again - and no wonder.

(We found this on the Internet Archive.  Thought it was worth sharing.)

Related articles

• McAuliffe Administration to Local Divisions of Social Services: Same-Sex Spouses can now Legally Adopt
• Commonwealth Taking Additional Steps to Safeguard Against Ebola - SPREAD THE FEAR!
• Governor McAuliffe Signs Executive Order on Reducing Energy Consumption in Virginia Government
• Undermining The Constitution A HISTORY OF LAWLESS GOVERNMENT (Part 13)
• Morality Beyond Same Sex Marriage; Morality? It's Now Gone.
• FEDERALIST PAPERS No. 49. Method of Guarding Against the Encroachments of Any One Department of Government by Appealing to the People Through a Convention.

Undermining The Constitution A HISTORY OF LAWLESS GOVERNMENT (Part 13)

By Thomas James Norton

THE CONSERVATION OF SOIL IN FARMING STATES BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION

With the trickiness in the use of language which characterized the National Industrial Recovery Act, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, and the Bituminous Coal Act (all three held unconstitutional), to make believe that they were not what they were, Congress passed the second AAA and called it an act for "Soil Conservation," proceeding thereunder to irrigate the farming land with money of the taxpayers which it had been prevented by the decision of the Supreme Court from distributing under the first act. The second AAA was as lawless as the first.

For more than a decade Congress has been sending money to the farmers ostensibly to help them conserve their soil, an obligation resting upon them in the first instance, and upon the State when the erosion (or whatever is the matter) is so widespread as to call for the exertion of the police power, of which power the United States has none.

Illegal subsidies to agriculture of appalling magnitude

The magnitude of this drain upon the taxpayers of the country may be understood from the fact that in 1946

202

---

203

Washington gave to the farmers for "soil conservation" $57,000,000.
The total of subsidies to agriculture in 1947, as reported (1948) by the Secretary of the Treasury (p. 429), was $2,299,000,000. Yet in the Presidential campaign of 1948 the candidates of all parties promised the farmer more! The returns indicated that he voted for the party that had delivered.
And that misuse of money favored a powerful voting class who were marketing wheat at $3 a bushel, corn at about the same price, oats at a similar price, and livestock at rates so high that restaurants were charging their patrons $4 for a sirloin steak!
Through the years, $1 a bushel for wheat, 75¢ for corn, and the same price for oats were regarded on the land as good prices.
Of course, as before said, the conservation of soil is none of the business of the United States. It is the obligation of the landowner to take care of his land. He had done that from the time the Pilgrims cleared away the timber in the Massachusetts Colonies. He mastered rivers without knowing that he should have the help of a Big or Little T.V.A., and he opened roads wherever they were needed without a Federal Highway Act.
Why Constitution for independent individual
The men who wrote the Constitution being of that kind, they never gave authority to Congress to take the money of one class by taxation and pass it along with a bow and a smile to another group of great voting power. By Magna Carta their forebears made the King promise to keep hands off industry and trade, except under the necessity

---

204

of war. Hence, the Constitution contains no grant of power to Congress to pass anything of even the remotest resemblance to the National Industrial Recovery Act. And as they extracted a pledge from King John to let trade alone, the Constitution authorizes Congress only to "regulate" commerce carried on by men, not to engage in commerce by any branch of government, or by a Fascist corporation set up by it. The early American tilled his land without expecting any help from anybody, and he had no idea that Government could by either punitive or predatory taxation place any limit on the fruits of his industry. Accordingly, no grant for paternalism or imperialism was given by the Constitution to Congress.
Soil conservation important, but not to Washington
To be sure, the conservation of the soil of the farmer may become in some localities of so burdensome a nature that it ceases to be the obligation of the individual. Where erosion or some other peril is so widely extended and affects so many owners and so much property that it cannot be dealt with successfully by individuals or by a group of them, then it becomes the duty of the State, either to assist in the task of prevention or take it over altogether. But the United States has no police power. And the Tenth Amendment was designed to prevent it forever from usurping any.
"Soil conservation" is a deceiving term, like "commerce" in the National Labor Relations Act. It is a cover for subsidies from the pockets of the country to those on the land, a transfer of money from one class to another which the Supreme Court held could not be made when it pro-

---

205

nounced the first Agricultural Adjustment Act unconstitutional.
As mentioned in a preceding chapter, the farmer has been put in a bad situation by the mismanagement in Government which ballooned his costs and those of everybody else beyond all endurance. But that must be mended by removal of the cause, not by subsidies, which the taxpayers cannot carry indefinitely, even if they were legal.
Procedure provided by Constitution adequate for conservation
In a condition of erosion, or of a "dust bowl," involving several States, they have open to them the "Agreement or Compact with another State" authorized by the closing words of Article I of the Constitution, with "the Consent of Congress." The seven States in the basin of the Colorado River made use of this provision to work out an agreement for a fair division of the valuable water of that stream. So when the erosion or other trouble is beyond the ability of the landowner, it becomes the duty of the State to take hold. And when the difficulty belongs to more than one State, there is a constitutional way to solve the problem.
But the subject is as far beyond the constitutional field of Congress as are the sands of the Sahara.
On July 22,1947, the Associated Press reported that the House of Representatives "had voted twice to eliminate the benefit-payment program for 1948 and sharply cut back payments on this year's crops." The Senate-House conference group agreed "to continue the main farm program into 1948." In addition to that, it agreed to a fund of $265,000,000 "to make the benefit payments and meet other costs of the farm crop program on the 1947 crop."

---

206

The "other costs" were $24,000,000 to pay the bureaucrats "for expenses of farmer committeemen who plan and check the programs"!
The farm bill compromise would provide $960,000,000 "for agricultural purposes during the fiscal year 1948 in comparison with last year's expenditures of $2,275,000,000" President Truman asked for $1,188,000,000.
National government without feeling for taxpayers
The disrespect for the rights and property of the people in general, in order to favor highly organized voting groups, is, in addition to being unconstitutional, morally wrong. In the Congress for the last decade and a half, in the White House, in the legislatures, in the city councils, everywhere in public office where there is authority to spend, there has developed, through indifference or incompetence of those who should have been on guard, the grossest unconcern for the taxpayer. As a capital illustration of this, there is cited the veto by the President of a tax-reduction bill passed by the new Congress in 1947 which had been voted into power on a platform promising relief from exorbitant taxation.^[1]
In the concluding chapter of this work it is shown that we must take the President out of this kind of politics by returning to the strictest observance of the method of election prescribed by the Constitution.

---

1. The ruthless course of the Government at Washington respecting the taxpayers brings to mind the denunciation by Saint Simon of the Bourbon monarchy, which brought on by taxes the French Revolution, that it "has scourged, rather than governed, the state."

From the fine folks over at Barefoot's world.  
http://www.barefootsworld.net/
Pay a visit to them.  It's a great site.

Liberty?  You have the right to complain.  Nothing more.

That right too will soon end.

Related articles

• Undermining The Constitution A HISTORY OF LAWLESS GOVERNMENT (Part 12)
• Lets Set The Record Straight On Constitutional Preeminence!
• A Mind Bending Trip to The Dark Side
• Doomsday Seed Vault in the Arctic - Bill Gates, Rockefeller & The GMO Giants Know Something We Don't
• Is Our Constitution Outdated ? By; Sue Long
• FEDERALIST PAPERS No. 49. Method of Guarding Against the Encroachments of Any One Department of Government by Appealing to the People Through a Convention.

Anti Federalist Papers No. 49 – On Constitutional Conventions (Part 1)

That the new constitution cannot make a union of states, but only of individuals, and purposes the beginning of one new society, one new government in all matters, is evident from these considerations, viz: It marks no line of distinction between separate state matters, and what would of right come under the control of the powers ordained in a union of states. To say that no line could be drawn, is giving me the argument. For what can be more absurd than to say, that states are united where a general power is established that extends to all objects of government, i. e. , all that exist among the people who make the compact? And is it not clear that Congress have the right (by the constitution), to make general laws for proving all acts, records, proceedings, and the effect thereof, in what are now called the states? Is it possible after this that any state act can exist, or any public business be done, without the direction and sanction of Congress, or by virtue of some subordinate authority? If not, how in the nature of things can there be a union of states? Does not the uniting of states, as states, necessarily imply the existence of separate state powers?

Again, the constitution makes no consistent, adequate provision for amendments to be made to it by states, as states. Not they who drew up the amendments (should any be made), but they who ratify them, must be considered as making them. Three fourths of the legislatures of the several states, as they are now called, may ratify amendments - that is, if Congress see fit, but not without. Where is then any independent state authority recognized in the plan?

And if there is no independent state authority, how can there be a union of states? But is it not a question of importance why the states in their present capacity, cannot ratify the original? I mean, why the legislatures of the several states cannot do this business? I wish to be informed where to find the regular exercise and legal sanction of state power, if the legislative authority of the state is set aside. Have the people some other constitutional means by which they can give their united voice in state affairs? This leads me to observe, that should the new constitution be received as it stands, it can never be proved that it originated from any proper state authority; because there is no such authority recognized either in the form of it, or in the mode fixed upon for its ratification. It says, "We the people of the United States," etc. , make this constitution; but does this phrase, "We the people of the United States," prove that the people are acting in state character, or that the several states must of necessity exist with separate governments? Who that understands the subject will believe either? . . .

The plan does not acknowledge any constitutional state authority as necessary in the ratification of it. This work is to be done by a mere convention, only in consequence of mere recommendation; which does by no means amount to a proper state act. As no state act can exist independent of the supreme authority of the state, and this authority is out of the question in the ratification of the new constitution, it clearly follows that the ratifying of it, by a mere convention, is no proper state business. To conclude, the people may make the original, but the people have no right to alter it. Congress may order this matter just as they please, and consequently have whom they please elected for governors or representatives, not of the states but of the people; and not of the people as men but as property. . . .

MASSACHUSETTENSIS

---

It appears to me that I was mistaken in supposing that we could so very easily make trial of this constitution, and again change it at our pleasure. The conventions of the several states cannot propose any alterations - they are only to give their assent and ratification. And after the constitution is once ratified, it must remain fixed until two thirds of both the houses of Congress shall deem it necessary to propose amendments; or the legislatures of two thirds of the several states shall make application to Congress for the calling a convention for proposing amendments - which amendments shall not be valid until they are ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by Congress. This appears to me to be only a cunning way of saying that no alteration shall ever be made; so that whether it is a good constitution or a bad constitution, it will remain forever unamended.

Lycurgus, when he promulgated his laws to the Spartans, made them swear that they would make no alterations in them until he should return from a journey which he was then about to undertake. He chose never to return, and therefore no alteration could be made in his laws. The people were made to believe that they could make trial of his laws for a few months or years, during his absence, and as soon as he returned they could continue to observe them or reject at pleasure. Thus this celebrated republic was in reality established by a trick.

In like manner the proposed constitution holds out a prospect of being subject to be changed if it be found necessary or convenient to change it; but the conditions upon which an alteration can take place, are such as in all probability will never exist. The consequence will be that when the constitution is once established it never can be altered or amended without some violent convulsion or civil war.

The conditions, I say, upon which any alterations can take place, appear to me to be such as never will exist. Two thirds of both houses of congress, or the legislatures of two thirds of the states, must agree in desiring a convention to be called. This will probably never happen. But if it should happen, then the convention may agree to the amendments or not, as they think right; and after all three fourths of the states must ratify the amendments. Before all this labyrinth can be traced to a conclusion, ages will revolve, and perhaps the great principles upon which our late glorious revolution was founded, will be totally forgotten.

If the principles of liberty are not firmly fixed and established in the present constitution, in vain may we hope for retrieving them hereafter.

People once possessed of power are always loathe to part with it; and we shall never find two thirds of a Congress voting or proposing anything which shall derogate from their own authority and importance, or agreeing to give back to the people any part of those privileges which they have once parted with - so far from it, that the greater occasion there may be for a reformation, the less likelihood will there be of accomplishing it.

The greater the abuse of power, the more obstinately is it always persisted in.

As to any expectation of two thirds of the legislatures concurring in such a request, it is if possible still more remote. The legislatures of the states will be but forms and shadows, and it will be the height of arrogance and presumption in them, to turn their thoughts to such high subjects. After this constitution is once established, it is too evident that we shall be obliged to fill up the offices of assemblymen and councillors, as we do those of constables, by appointing men to serve whether they will or not, and fining them if they refuse. The members thus appointed, as soon as they can hurry through a law or two for repairing highways, or impounding cattle, will conclude the business of their sessions as suddenly as possible, that they may return to their own business. Their heads will not be perplexed with the great affairs of state. We need not expect two thirds of them ever to interfere in so momentous a question as that of calling a continental convention. The different legislatures will have no communication with one another, from the time of the new constitution being ratified to the end of the world. Congress will be the great focus of power as well as the great and only medium of communication from one state to another. The great and the wise and the mighty will be in possession of places and offices; they will oppose all changes in favor of liberty; they will steadily pursue the acquisition of more and more power to themselves and their adherents. . . .

AN OLD WHIG

Learn More About American History:  Visit Jamestown, Yorktown and Colonial Williamsburg Living Museums in Virginia.  

Related articles

• Commonwealth Taking Additional Steps to Safeguard Against Ebola - SPREAD THE FEAR!
• Governor McAuliffe Signs Executive Order on Reducing Energy Consumption in Virginia Government
• Governor McAuliffe Announces Administration Appointments (Because More Have Left)
• FEDERALIST PAPERS No. 49. Method of Guarding Against the Encroachments of Any One Department of Government by Appealing to the People Through a Convention.
• Gainsco Racing, Corvette Race Car As Seen In Gloucester, VA
• Governor McAuliffe Announces Federal Grants to Improve School Safety and Mental Health Services for Students

Morality Beyond Same Sex Marriage; Morality? It's Now Gone.

President Lyndon B. Johnson signs the 1964 Civil Rights Act as Martin Luther King, Jr., and others, look on. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Please note; the following arguments we are about to present do not reflect our actual positions on the subject.

With same sex marriage now being thrown upon many within various states throughout the United States questions of what is moral and of civil liberty or civil rights now come into full question.  That question being what exactly are civil rights?  The claim for allowing same sex marriage is based on civil rights.  Now that these arguments have been winning so much ground, it's time to seriously explore civil rights and start asking a lot of questions and even demanding further civil rights.

  Since these arguments are civil rights then one has to start arguing for further civil rights.  The civil rights of polygamy which is the ability to marry more than one person.  If a man wishes to marry more than one person, then under the liberty of civil rights, he should be allowed to.  If a woman wants more than one husband or wife, then she should have full legal rights and ability to do so.

  And what of the rights of those who practice beastiality?  Under the liberty of civil rights, if a man or woman wishes to marry an animal and practice whatever they wish with that animal under the liberties of civil rights, then they should be fully allowed and legal.  Under the liberty of civil rights then either a man or woman should be able to marry any person and or multiple animals and live in whatever manner they so wish practicing whatever desires they wish.

  Further under the liberty of civil rights, if a man or woman wishes to marry a minor of any age, that person should be allowed to.  If a man wishes to marry a 7 year old boy, what right does anyone have to block the civil rights of that man?  Where can morality be reasonably be argued?  Morality has become strictly subjective now.  Not later on down the road but right now.  

  Prostitution needs to be legalized now as does every form of gambling.  All drugs need to be fully legalized as who is anyone to determine the morality of anyone who wishes to use them?  Abortion equally is a a civil right, not a question of morality.

  Same sex marriage has never been about rights, it's about breaking the backbone of Christianity and the questions of a moral society.  Now that it has been broken, one can no longer block any of these other arguments on a sound foundation.  There are groups now working on infiltrating Christian churches in an effort to demand that same sex marriages are recognized and not blocked, which is the full destruction of the Christian church.

  And how will they win this battle?  Through the tax structure for one.  In other ways, laws will be enacted against ministers in a way where ministers can be arrested and convicted of crimes for not recognizing same sex marriages.  And again, I argue, that the rest of the above arguments are just as valid.  Why not have 8 men marry each other creating a new definition of marriage?

  Property rights laws will become one of the biggest headaches ever seen once polygamy becomes law.  But why stop there?  The rights to contract slavery should also be recognized.  If a person wishes to sell themselves into slavery, under the liberties of civil rights and equally under contractual laws, why should this not be allowed?  Who is to define the morality against such?  The doors are now fully open to all of these matters and the battles are now about to begin.  We have already seen battles beginning for the full legalization of prostitution.  Gambling has been making slow inroads for decades, now it will go onto the fast track.

  Why not gamble your life?  If you lose, you become a slave or a prostitute, for x amount of time or for life based on the contract you gamble for?  Sounds rather tempting does it not?  Who is to say that these issues are wrong now?  What rights do judges have to hear any case?  Anarchism has become the law based on recent forced decisions on "WE THE PEOPLE" who did NOT authorize these decisions.  Who cares what your opinion is on these issues as everyone has to ask why your opinion should even count as your opinion violates the civil rights of others who have different opinions.  When society spoke, the vast majority of people voted against same sex marriages.  The politicians stole the rights of the people and in our opinion, (which now does not count as it violates someone's civil rights to their own opinions), forced immoral, indecent, anti Christian principals on us all against the will of the people.

  The United States, once the flame of liberty and freedom, has become an international joke of black smoke and dust in this modern day.  No longer a leader of freedom but instead a leader of tyranny against the people.  There is no longer any right to argue rights as anyone should now be free to argue against those rights that are no longer rights but instead civil liberty rights add infinity add nausea.  

  What the future should hold?  Super centers where one can go in, marry the first prostitute that makes them feel good, gamble with their lives risking slavery while taking an insane amount of drugs and if pregnancy becomes an issue later on down the road, an abortion clinic right there under that same roof.  Shows for entertainment featuring some of the most bizarre forms of beastiality with an option to marry the animal going to the highest bidder.  Take your children but if one of them gets married while there, you do not have the option of bringing them back home or defending your child against that option.

  The door is now open to such a future society.  Are you ready for it?  How can you now argue against it?

Again, these are not our positions, just the handwriting on the walls that we see.

Related articles

• Same-Sex "Marriage," An Illogical Counterfeit
• McAuliffe Administration to Local Divisions of Social Services: Same-Sex Spouses can now Legally Adopt
• Commonwealth Taking Additional Steps to Safeguard Against Ebola - SPREAD THE FEAR!
• Governor McAuliffe Signs Executive Order on Reducing Energy Consumption in Virginia Government
• Va. makes minimal progress on its climate change plan
• FEDERALIST PAPERS No. 49. Method of Guarding Against the Encroachments of Any One Department of Government by Appealing to the People Through a Convention.