The Liberty Amendments: Restoring The American Republic...by Mark R. Levin

[Brant Gaede]

Don't forget Twitter!

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

For the optimists, especially Gulch,

In terms of a grass-roots movements, we are doing just fine. These things are slow, but they are moving forward.

Don't forget that Progressives are to be found in both the Democratic party as well as the Republican party. This was not very clear to the American public before, but it is now.

Before, it was inconceivable that a person like Ron Paul could be a viable Presidential candidate. But not only was he one in the last two elections, his son is elected to Congress and people like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and so on are an active part of the government. Freedom and small government versus big government is actually being debated in the mainstream as a serious topic rather than which form of big government is best.

I am an optimist in terms of human nature. The Progressives did sneak into the school system and indoctrinated an entire generation, but even with this indoctrination, people can only look at a contradiction when it keeps being pointed out to them for so long before they start questioning it. And, like Jerry said, there is the Internet. It is impossible to hide truth and totally rewrite history like it was in the past. Some fundamental truths can penetrate indoctrinated people over time.

If I remember correctly, in the Hannity interview, Mark Levin said it would probably take about 20 years for a convention to amend the Constitution to happen if things kept on the way they are now. And he said there is no guarantee it will happen.

(I find it irritating when people don't look at the material and claim the contrary like FF did above by insinuating that The Liberty Amendments is a "quick fix" attempt by a pundit. It reminds of me an OL member--MM--who used to bash Glenn Beck to the skies and, when cornered, admitted he had not seen one show. Then when he saw one, he was bashing before the first 5 minutes--all in terms of the caricature misrepresentations presented in the left-leaning press. When people are like that, facts will eventually get through. But it's a slog. I don't mind disagreement, but constant misrepresentation is irritating. I believe you have to identify correctly before judging. When you identify incorrectly and present this as fact, you disrespect the reader by insinuating he or she is not intelligent enough to handle the truth.)

I am heartened by the small-government part of the right finally waking up to storytelling. Glenn Beck recently did Man in the Moon--the DVD will be out in September--and has set up an entire department in his growing empire devoted to telling the American story. I'm not a fan of Christian films, but they are being made in the mainstream now with the pro-freedom message as one of the themes. There are other examples where freedom is the core message and this field is growing strong. And, the American hero archetype who holds his/her own sense of justice above the rules of society (even with the modern "anti-heroes") and acts on it is as strong as ever. This never went away nor do I see it going away.

As gravy, just look at what happens when a typical leftist theme like class warfare between haves and have-nots gets too blatant in a mainstream story (for one example). The movie Elysium is tanking and not even the star power of Matt Damon can save it.

These are good signs that the spirit of liberty is stronger all throughout the American society than the pessimists would have you believe.

The good news is we--meaning the greater part of the voting American public--don't have to agree on all issues in order to amend the Constitution. All we have to agree on is to make the federal government smaller and restrict what it can do. If amendment is not reached, at least on the way we can get people in who will work to downsize the government and undo the more noxious laws.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The following, in my opinion, is just noise so far, but it sounds an awful lot like starting noise:

Tom Coburn calls for a national Constitutional Convention
BY CHARLIE SPIERING
AUGUST 22, 2013
Washington Examiner

From the article:

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., explained to a town hall of his constituents that he wanted to call a national Constitutional Convention after reading Mark Levin’s new book, The Liberty Amendments.

“I used to have a great fear of constitutional conventions,” Coburn said according to the Tulsa World. “I have a great fear now of not having one.”

Michael

[Selene]

This is one of the reasons that the Republican Party is dead!

http://washingtonexaminer.com/tom-coburn-calls-for-a-national-constitutional-convention/article/2534588

Apparently, if the reporting is correct, and this is accurate, and he stated that:

“I used to have a great fear of constitutional conventions,” Coburn said according to the Tulsa World. “I have a great fear now of not having one.”

Therefore, if, Coburn is too stupid about the founding documents to realize that you cannot call for a Constitutional Convention because the specific reference in the document that you are relying on for your basic assumption, or, legally, your basic Constitutional foundation does not exist.

Similar to your effective analysis of FF's sideline carping, with, apparently, conscious misstatements of Levin's theoretical applications of Article V of the Constitution.

I am on a separate vacation and I just did not get the opportunity to make roughly the same point you made.

However, excellent argument.

A....

[Brant Gaede]

The first CC was held in secret by big names against a weak government.

If another were held it would be in public by pygmies against a supremely powerful government.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

You are extrapolating from the past to the future. But the internet is a wildcard.

Of course! All of our expectations concerning the future are derived from our past experiences. How else would we reckon what the future might bring?

Ba'al Chatzaf

You don't believe the internet will have any influence on how rapidly ideas are spread?

Before the invention of the printing press, not much happened for perhaps thousands of years. With the printing press, things started to happen; science, technology, ideas.

The internet is the printing press on steroids.

The internet is not yet at its full power. In some countries, not everyone is connected to the internet. Even in technologically advanced countries, not everyone has ultra-high speed, which I am told is about a hundred times as fast as ordinary high speed. Also consider that computers and storage media are getting better and cheaper.

My point is the internet is a wildcard that puts doubt on your prediction of how quickly ideas will spread and be accepted in the general population.

Look at the bright side.

Before an idea spreads on the net it has to be thought. before a book is printed it has to be written.

[Selene]

The first CC was held in secret by big names against a weak government.

If another were held it would be in public by pygmies against a supremely powerful government.

--Brant

If that were possible, I would share your terrors.

There is absolutely no single phrase in the entire document that would permit that application.

I wonder how many OL'ers have read the document from start to finish.

It is a truly intellectual journey.

When you integrate it with the Federalist Papers, which is not easy work, and, you choose to research the links in Mark's Liberty Amendments, you can at least provide an informed statement.

A...

[Brant Gaede]

The first CC was held in secret by big names against a weak government.

If another were held it would be in public by pygmies against a supremely powerful government.

--Brant

If that were possible, I would share your terrors.

There is absolutely no single phrase in the entire document that would permit that application.

I wonder how many OL'ers have read the document from start to finish.

It is a truly intellectual journey.

When you integrate it with the Federalist Papers, which is not easy work, and, you choose to research the links in Mark's Liberty Amendments, you can at least provide an informed statement.

A...

What was in the Articles of Confederation that permitted a constitutional convention?

--Brant

I don't know but have no "terrors"

why not an amendment that negates the entirety of the constitution replaced by that same amendment?

unintended consequences

[Francisco Ferrer]

If I remember correctly, in the Hannity interview, Mark Levin said it would probably take about 20 years for a convention to amend the Constitution to happen if things kept on the way they are now. And he said there is no guarantee it will happen.

(I find it irritating when people don't look at the material and claim the contrary like FF did above by insinuating that The Liberty Amendments is a "quick fix" attempt by a pundit. It reminds of me an OL member--MM--who used to bash Glenn Beck to the skies and, when cornered, admitted he had not seen one show. Then when he saw one, he was bashing before the first 5 minutes--all in terms of the caricature misrepresentations presented in the left-leaning press. When people are like that, facts will eventually get through. But it's a slog. I don't mind disagreement, but constant misrepresentation is irritating. I believe you have to identify correctly before judging. When you identify incorrectly and present this as fact, you disrespect the reader by insinuating he or she is not intelligent enough to handle the truth.)

Michael

You don't get it. In the comparative history of political movements, 20 years is quick. It took nearly 70 years for The Communist Manifesto to blossom into the Bolshevik Revolution.

It took 56 years for Atlas Shrugged to get us from the dark days of the Eisenhower administration to . . . well, to where we are today under Obama.

Not that I think we're going to have even one of the good Levin amendments by 2033.

[Francisco Ferrer]

Therefore, if, Coburn is too stupid about the founding documents to realize that you cannot call for a Constitutional Convention because the specific reference in the document that you are relying on for your basic assumption, or, legally, your basic Constitutional foundation does not exist.

Similar to your effective analysis of FF's sideline carping, with, apparently, conscious misstatements of Levin's theoretical applications of Article V of the Constitution.

A....

I've already covered this. My use of the term "Constitutional convention" has always been within the context of and clearly linked to the amendment process of Article V. Thus with regard to Levin's proposal there were never any misstatements on my part.

To characterize my writing as such is itself a misstatement. But I must remember the allegation comes from someone who assumes that a passing knowledge of the work of Andrew Galambos indicates a fascination with the Nazi Party.

[BaalChatzaf]

This is one of the reasons that the Republican Party is dead!

The Republican Party is not just plain dead. It is brain dead.

After Barry Goldwater was deconstructed the Republican Party never recovered. Now the corpse has begun to stink.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

This is one of the reasons that the Republican Party is dead!

The Republican Party is not just plain dead. It is brain dead.

After Barry Goldwater was deconstructed the Republican Party never recovered. Now the corpse has begun to stink.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Goldwater was never "deconstructed"--whatever that means--and the Republican Party recovered nicely from the 1964 election, although the country never did. The problem is the Democrats are herded into leftest statist positions by journalists and journalism heavily influenced by Marxism capitalizing on cultural inertia, while the Republicans are a hodgepodge of self-serving politicians. "Brain dead" is correct, but not new and not confined to one party. As a whole the whole damn country is brain dead in this way. There is little critical thinking about important, public issues by hoi polloi and no demand for it, just a great albeit unfelt need--"need" for a better world.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You don't get it.

Of course I get it.

I'm just writing for the reader, not for you and your vanity issues.

My thing is ideas, not rationalizations. Someday, not now, I might discuss cybernetic systems with you. Your posts are a perfect example of one in action.

You've got a good mind. I don't resonate with the core values you have chosen to drive it.

The politics is the wrapper. That part's OK, I guess...

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

This is one of the reasons that the Republican Party is dead!

The Republican Party is not just plain dead. It is brain dead.

After Barry Goldwater was deconstructed the Republican Party never recovered. Now the corpse has begun to stink.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Goldwater was never "deconstructed"--whatever that means--and the Republican Party recovered nicely from the 1964 election, although the country never did. The problem is the Democrats are herded into leftest statist positions by journalists and journalism heavily influenced by Marxism capitalizing on cultural inertia, while the Republicans are a hodgepodge of self-serving politicians. "Brain dead" is correct, but not new and not confined to one party. As a whole the whole damn country is brain dead in this way. There is little critical thinking about important, public issues by hoi polloi and no demand for it, just a great albeit unfelt need--"need" for a better world.

--Brant

I was alive and voting at the time. Goldwater was portrayed by the press and the Democrat liberals as a maniac. His sanity was called into question.

His own party fellows never emphasized what a cool libertarian agenda he was advocating (outside of Cold War issues).

Goldwater was one of the last decent politicians of either party. After he went down in flames to that scum bag Lyndon Johnson I never voted for a major candidate again.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

I worked on that campaign from about six (6) months before he announced to the bitter end on election night when we got crushed,

He was an honest politician. He was a man of his word,

His speech in, I believe, The Cow Palace in San Francisco was a brilliant exposition of where to take America!

[Francisco Ferrer]

The Republicans are the party of false hopes.

Once upon a time, the GOP, at least that portion of it outside the east coast elites, represented the country's possible salvation from the leviathan of FDR's New Deal. After Ike's nomination-election in 1952, however, that hope vanished. Not only was there was no rollback, but the nation experienced an expansion of federal power, particularly in the realm of education.

In 1964 Goldwater was the real deal, but his chances sank quickly after the mass media joined in unison to smear him. Though honest to the core, Goldwater's voting record on his return to the Senate was hardly laissez-faire and indicated the sort of compromise we might have witnessed had he won the White House.

Nixon,1969-74, marked an uninterrupted continuation of LBJ's Keynesian nanny state with secret police tactics thrown in for good measure.

Reagan, despite the smiles and libertarian rhetoric, increased federal spending and kept tax collections in line with the 40 year average.

His successor, Bush I, was simply a kinder, gentler Nixon.

The Revolution of '94 or Gingrich Revolution was bloated with empty promises, including the quickly ignored Contract with America.

Bush II was a full blown foreign and domestic disaster.

And, today, the Tea Party apparently doesn't even have the willpower to cut funding to Obamacare.

Apparently every generation is condemned to relearn the hard lessons of its parents.

Which party is it, again, that's supposed to deliver the "Liberty Amendments"?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Which party is it, again, that's supposed to deliver the "Liberty Amendments"?

The American people.

It's not a top down thing.

And it may not be as given in The Liberty Amendments. It may just be a "more liberty" thing.

The presupposition that a political party is going to deliver the ideas in a book--or anything for that matter--is flat-out wrong.

In my thinking and what Levin presents, it works like this:

Grassroots movement ---> (eventually causes) Convention to kick ass

In FF-Land (so far), it only works like this:

Elite of some sort (person or group) ---> (eventually causes) Something to bitch about

In the first, there are individuals all over the place and you can communicate with them. In the second, there are only individuals in the elite and cattle in the masses to be manipulated like automatons.

Like I said earlier, there is a fundamental difference between my idea of human nature and FF's.

(I don't know why I am wasting my time...)

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I was kind of bitter I couldn't vote for Goldwater. I was in the army, basic training, and five months short of my 21st birthday. I was from Arizona and he was my hero, the only political hero I've ever had.

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

In my thinking and what Levin presents, it works like this:

Grassroots movement ---> (eventually causes) Convention to kick ass

Michael

And, presumably, you know this is likely to be true because

a) you've studied political developments and demographics over the past ten or more years and can point to a definite trend in this direction, or

b) you feel it in your heart and that is a feeling that just can't be denied

[caroljane]

The New Deal was indeed the watershed of how America perceived itself to be, and repealing and reversing it continues to be the main goal of a growing number of Americans.

[caroljane]

That America the country of Tomorrow, of innovation and exploration and hope, is now so focused on the past and second-guessing the Founding Fathers , is frankly inexplicable to me.

[BaalChatzaf]

The American Republic as the Founders conceived it was lost after the end of the Civil War.

consider the transformation : The United States are --> The United States is.

The Civil War brought about unified National Government instead of Federal Government. The 17 th amendment was the last nail in the coffin of the Federal System as the Founders conceived it.

I wish some of you hyper-optimists would learn some history. That means You, Gulch!

Ba'al Chatzaf

[caroljane]

Yes. Your country is 200 years old and has weathered a regional rebellion and a change in national policies.

[GALTGULCH8]

Gentlepersons,

I checked out the www.YALiberty.org website and found that Young Americans For Liberty claims 125,000 student activists on over 400 campuses! That far exceeds the number of activists at SFL which only needs 3 people to start a campus affiliate and has 930 such affiliates or chapters.

Those who know me from my posts here realize that when I see a number like 125K, especially young intelligent college kids who are reading about the Constitution, free market economics, moral basis for Capitalism, i start to calculate the potential exponential growth. 250K, 500K 1Million. That is so utterly achievable in a matter of a few weeks or months. Then 2M, 4M, 8M, 16M in a few more months! Then 32M, 64M, 128M, 250M. Then imagine them asking those who are running for office at the state legislative level where they stand on the Liberty Amendments?

THis is so utterly plausible in your lifetime within the next few years, maybe a year or two!

We don't have to reach those who are collecting a check from the government to accomplish this. Just college kids generation after generation with new young people entering each year all across the country, and remember, the world.

This kind of movement might empower the younger generation from every culture who might be able to influence those cultures to give up their superstitions.

It is here now, The books exist. The philosophy exists. THe movement exists. It will grow with or without you. You will have opportunities to tell people you meet just as I do.

Each day.

IT is very good news to those I make aware of this happening. I was thanked by a co worker today for making him aware of the existence of both the YAL numbers and The Liberty Amendment book and the ideas behind it. That the second process for amending the Constitution was placed there by founders who wanted an option in the event that the central government they were creating over themselves became oppressive.

Just as our own government has become oppressive. We are not ignorant frogs in water that is being warmed up to a boil. We are aware of the violations of the oath of office of the politicians in Congress, the Senate, The White House and in the Supreme Court. We know the direction the country is heading in. We sense it is unstoppable but now we know how it can be stopped and the Founders vision restored. The process has begun.

Ayn Rand's books are part of the process as are those of von Mises, Tom Woods, Andrew Napolitano, George Reisman, Lysander Spooner, Jacob Hornberger, Ron Paul, Murray Rothbard and so many others being read by the youngsters already in the movement. Not to mention Mark Levin and his The Liberty Amendments and G. Edward Griffin's The Creature From Jekyll island.

The movement is alive and well despite all your naysaying. It will continue to grow. At some point some within the movement might encounter harm's way as there will be some who would be less well off in a limited Constitutional Republic than they are in a welfare state.

At some point this movement will become publically visible and be deemed a threat.

It is a threat just as the Founders were a threat to the establishment of their day, the British Empire and the King of England.

gg

[caroljane]

It is a threat like the SDS was, to Richard Nixon.