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


Selene

Recommended Posts

The very broad outline seems to be here, a new book proposes a way to force the federal government to downsize itself. And relinquish more powers to the states..,

Those powers may or may not include the right to secede from the Union.

The book is about the way, the method, etc and nobody has read it. The discussion is about who thinks what should happen if the federal government is forced to get smaller.\

Am I entirely off the trolley here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 246
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Gobs and gobs of unanswerable or hard to research questions is another.

Yes, I have discussed history a great deal on this forum. One unavoidable characteristic of history is that in order to do it right you have to do the hard research, Regrettable but nonetheless true.

And on and on. One day it might be interesting to come up with a list of devices.

I have seen FF doing some of this stuff when I skimmed his posts over time, so, with misgiving since this kind of discussion usually is a big fat waste of time, I challenged one of his presuppositions. I did that because he suddenly interested me. He went for discrediting Mark Levin to the detriment of examining Levin's ideas. In other words, the discussion was starting to become about Levin's character. After seeing this kind of pattern 500 bazillioin times over the years, seeing it again added with the constant argument from intimidation, I stepped in.

Yes, I did point out the similarities between the outline of Levin's book and an earlier work by Barnet, but only because originality is a perfectly legitimate criterion in the realm of literature.

Intimidation? The only one who should feel intimidated is a person who borrowed without proper credit--if there is such a character in this case. If Levin is in the right, I am sure he will put forth his case for independent authorship. But given the striking similarities of the 2009 work and the 2013 work, one can hardly be blamed for raising suspicions.

And rather than ignoring Levin's ideas, I have written at length about the weakness of amendments (the high court can ignore them no matter how plainly written) and specifically attempted to engage discussion on Levin's proposal to have supermajorities of Congress override the Supreme Court. So far, no one has taken up my last gambit.

Instead the response has consisted of accusations of hidden agendas on my part, and even a veiled suggestion of National Socialism.

I'm not sure what your message is (I haven't read enough of your stuff to arrive at a conclusion), but I've seen enough to know it's definitely not the wrapper.

Prove it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have written at length about the weakness of amendments (the high court can ignore them no matter how plainly written) and specifically attempted to engage discussion on Levin's proposal to have supermajorities of Congress override the Supreme Court. So far, no one has taken up my last gambit.

This proposal is a very bad idea in principle. Practically speaking it would be of no effect. The Supreme Court has been pretty subservient to both Congress and the Executive since the late 1930s after the Roosevelt Administration intimidated the Justices by trying to pack the Court (with the help of my grandfather). The problem is you cannot change the government by changing the Constitution respecting its growth and size. Look what happened right out of the constitutional box in the Washington and Adams Administrations, political expansion, Indian Wars, the Mexican War, the Civil War, etc. And if you can't expand the state with war visit upon us an economic calamity.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant:

I think the 12 year term for Supreme Court Justices is an excellent Constitutional improvement.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

The way this discussion is going, you (and everyone else from what I see) seem to be unaware of Mark Levin's main proposal. It's not this specific amendment or that. it's the way to get a package of them into law that will reestablish constraints on the federal government and establish new ones.

The only exception discussion-wise is when you wrote: "Start on the state level nothing happens except the delegalization of abortion. The feds won't follow the states, the Republic will only disintegrate."

But that's not really to the point.

Mark is proposing a grass roots movement that will force the States, over a long haul, to convene for amending the Constitution. This provision in Article V has never been used--the amendments to date have all been proposed by Congress. He said the federal government has become so untrustworthy that trying to get it to fix itself is a near impossibility. But there is a recourse that can happen from the ground up. That is his main point.

The content of each of the amendments is up for debate.

Here is a direct quote from the opening of the Hannity interview posted near the start of this thread:

MARK LEVIN: I just want people to understand... I'm not running around writing amendments to the Constitution. What I'm doing is talking about reestablishing Constitutional Republicanism. Because we do not have it today. We can get into that a little bit later. What I'm saying is, unlike our opponents who evade the Constitution, who eviscerate the Constitution, who try to figure out ways to centralize the government as much as they can in violation of the Constitution. I'm saying those of us who believe in individual liberty, and private property rights, and the rule of law, and the Constitution, need to look at the Constitution for answers.

And it provides one under Article 5, two methods for amending the Constitution. One: Two thirds of both houses in Congress...

SEAN HANNITY: As you say in this, we're going to put on the screen...

MARK LEVIN: All right...

SEAN HANNITY: Article V to explain there are two...

MARK LEVIN: Two methods...

SEAN HANNITY: Methods... go ahead...

MARK LEVIN: Right. One of which has been used successfully. We have 27 amendments to the Constitution. One which has not.

But that second method is not radical. It's not weird. It's there because the framers put it there and they put it there for a reason.

The second method for amending the Constitution... the first was two-thirds of Congress proposing amendments to the States, three-fourths of the States ratify.

In this instance, it's two-thirds of the States calling a convention...

Not a constitutional convention. Article V talks about a convention for the purpose of amending the Constitution, proposing amendments. And you still need three-fourths of the States to ratify. So you wouldn't have a runaway convention or anything like that, as we have today a runaway Congress, a runaway Supreme Court, and a runaway bureaucracy and president. This is a system put in place specifically by the framers.

And George Mason insisted on it and got the support of the other members, the other delegates to the Constitutional Convention. He said, "Look. If Congress turns oppressive... if the federal government turns oppressive, what is the recourse other than violence? We have to have a way for this to be addressed."

And his recourse was the States would get together--as they often did, as they did to give birth of the nation--and propose these amendments. And you still need three-fourths of them to approve them.

I didn't want to type all that out, but since nobody wants to watch the video before taking Levin to task, at least the correct idea is now on written record.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have written at length about the weakness of amendments (the high court can ignore them no matter how plainly written) and specifically attempted to engage discussion on Levin's proposal to have supermajorities of Congress override the Supreme Court. So far, no one has taken up my last gambit.

This proposal is a very bad idea in principle. Practically speaking it would be of no effect. The Supreme Court has been pretty subservient to both Congress and the Executive since the late 1930s after the Roosevelt Administration intimidated the Justices by trying to pack the Court (with the help of my grandfather). The problem is you cannot change the government by changing the Constitution respecting its growth and size. Look what happened right out of the constitutional box in the Washington and Adams Administrations, political expansion, Indian Wars, the Mexican War, the Civil War, etc. And if you can't expand the state with war visit upon us an economic calamity.

--Brant

Yes, the premise of the supermajority override appears to be that two-thirds of the members of Congress are better at interprepreting the Constitution than a majority of nine justices. But why must that be the case? And why anyone would think that the override serves the separation of powers (checks and balances) is mystifying.

Of course, you are right that the judicial branch is very much the creature of the legislative. Giving Congress veto power would only make it official.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was pointed out earlier that the leftists/statists/Marxists/socialists took their time, infiltrated the colleges to indoctrinate the teachers who went on to infuse their theory into the minds of the kids in grammar schools, colleges and universities, who then grew up to elect the leftist community organizers to all levels of government.

So that method works if we had the time and inclination. Don't look now but the Students for Liberty and Young Americans for Liberty are kind of doing just that, are admittedly in the embryonic stage in numbers, but are widespread and using the intellectual ammunition provided by, among others, Ayn Rand herself through the efforts of The Atlas Society which has cleverly allied itself with these organizations.

It isn't growing fast enough to suit me but has the potential to grow exponentially. How long does it take to recruit someone in the cause of liberty at the college or university level?Then the recruits have to read a few books to know what they are talking about in their passing the torch efforts.

Given the financial health of our economy under the policies of the fanatical Keynesian Ben Bernanke, whose six years of Quantitative Easing hasn't worked yet he persists in thinking he hasn't done quite enough to bring down the dollar if that is his hidden agenda. Interest rates on the ten year US Treasury Bonds have doubled recently and may very well soar in coming weeks.

The consequences of rising Treasury Bond interest rates in our context are daunting. Many other rates are tied to Treasury Bond rates as you no doubt realize. Just to serve the national debt will become a nightmare at higher rates. There is no time to tinker, or to educate the electorate, not to mention to educate generations of young people. We are on the verge of the end of civilization as we know it.

But on another subject, nullification. I should have mentioned in that context, The Tenth Amendment Center, since no one else has.

www.tenthamendmentcenter.com

<<<"“The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified.” – United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 733 (1931).

The founding fathers had good reason to pen the Tenth Amendment.
The issue of power – and especially the great potential for a power struggle between the federal and the state governments – was extremely important to the America’s founders. They deeply distrusted government power, and their goal was to prevent the growth of the type of government that the British has exercised over the colonies.
Adoption of the Constitution of 1787 was opposed by a number of well-known patriots including Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and others. They passionately argued that the Constitution would eventually lead to a strong, centralized state power which would destroy the individual liberty of the People. Many in this movement were given the poorly-named tag “Anti-Federalists.”
The Tenth Amendment was added to the Constitution of 1787 largely because of the intellectual influence and personal persistence of the Anti-Federalists and their allies.
It’s quite clear that the Tenth Amendment was written to emphasize the limited nature of the powers delegated to the federal government. In delegating just specific powers to the federal government, the states and the people, with some small exceptions, were free to continue exercising their sovereign powers.
When states and local communities take the lead on policy, the people are that much closer to the policymakers, and policymakers are that much more accountable to the people. Few Americans have spoken with their president; many have spoken with their mayor.

Adherence to the Tenth Amendment is the first step towards ensuring liberty in the United States. Liberty through decentralization.">>>

And from the site re a poll of Americans on the issue of nullification:

<<<"For immediate release: May 7, 2013

Recent polling data indicates nullification has entered the mainstream.
A Rasmussen poll released Monday indicates more than one-third of Americans favor their state blocking federal gun control laws if it considers them unconstitutional. Less than half (45 percent) oppose blocking these unconstitutional violations of the Second Amendment.
Even more revealing; more people than not approve of nullification in general terms.
“On the general question of ‘nullification,’ 44 percent believe states should have the right to block any federal laws they disagree with on legal grounds. Thirty-six percent disagree and 20 are undecided,” pollsters said.
Digging into the numbers, we find even broader support for nullification where it really counts – on Main Street.
A majority of everyday politically engaged Americans support the general principle of nullification. According to the Rasmussen poll, 52 percent of mainstream voters think states should have the right to block any federal laws they disagree with on legal grounds. Where does the opposition come from? Seventy-four percent of those polled identifying with the “political class” oppose nullification.
“People are finally starting to understand and accept the concept of decentralization. Our message is mainstream now, and we have hard data to prove it,” Tennessee Tenth Amendment Center state chapter coordinator Lesley Swann said.
Tenth Amendment Center national communications director Mike Maharrey called the poll results “pretty amazing.”
“Think about it. Even with constant demonization of nullification in the media, a majority of everyday Americans believe the states should step in and block unconstitutional acts. And the pollsters used the word ‘block,’” he said. “It’s the politicians and pundits – the so-called political class – who opposes it. Hardly shocking, since the whole idea of decentralization threatens their grip on power.”
The poll does reveal some partisan division. A majority of Republicans support state efforts to block infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, and believe state and local government should take the lead in regulating firearms. Democrats generally oppose the idea and want the feds to control guns. But Maharrey points out Democrats support decentralization and nullification efforts when it comes to other issues.
“We’ve enjoyed strong support from the left when it comes to blocking indefinite detention under the NDAA. And a Pew Research poll shows 59 percent of Democrats think the feds should back off enforcing federal drug laws in states with legalized marijuana. That’s nullification at work,” he said. “Americans across the political spectrum intuitively embrace decentralization. They distrust monopolies. Nullification breaks up government power monopolies, and Americans are realizing that’s a pretty darn good idea.”
For more analysis of the poll results, click HERE.
###
Contact: Mike Maharrey
Communications director
O: 213.935.0553
media@tenthamendmentcenter.com
www.tenthamendmentcenter.com

The Tenth Amendment Center exists to promote and advance a return to a proper balance of power between federal and State governments envisioned by our founders, prescribed by the Constitution and explicitly declared in the Tenth Amendment. A national think tank based in Los Angeles, the Tenth Amendment Center works to preserve and protect the principle of strictly limited government through information, education, and activism.">>>

gg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The irony of Levin's Article V "Con-con" proposal is that there was a moment in U.S. history when a new Constitutional covention was just one vote short of becoming a reality. It was just a century ago, and the the purpose of the convention would have been to provide for the direct election of senators. Feeling the heat, Congress passed the 17th Amendment--which Mark Levin would now like to see repealed by means of a new Con-con.

I was recently told that in political affairs one should take a cautious view of human nature. With that in mind, we should remember that the last time a convention was successfully convened to revise the frame of government, it overstepped its authority, threw out the existing charter and adopted a far more centralized system.

Remember "The Monkey's Paw."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FF:

Levin's approach does not call for a Constitutional convention. If you are going to project a person's opinion, please have the decency and intellectual honesty to project it accurately.

Levin is specific concerning this point, in that he correctly points out that there is no section of the Constitution that permits a "Constitutional convention.":

There is Article V which provides for a convention to consider proposed amendments to the foundational document.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

The way this discussion is going, you (and everyone else from what I see) seem to be unaware of Mark Levin's main proposal. It's not this specific amendment or that. it's the way to get a package of them into law that will reestablish constraints on the federal government and establish new ones.

The only exception discussion-wise is when you wrote: "Start on the state level nothing happens except the delegalization of abortion. The feds won't follow the states, the Republic will only disintegrate."

But that's not really to the point.

Mark is proposing a grass roots movement that will force the States, over a long haul, to convene for amending the Constitution. This provision in Article V has never been used--the amendments to date have all been proposed by Congress. He said the federal government has become so untrustworthy that trying to get it to fix itself is a near impossibility. But there is a recourse that can happen from the ground up. That is his main point.

The content of each of the amendments is up for debate.

Here is a direct quote from the opening of the Hannity interview posted near the start of this thread:

MARK LEVIN: I just want people to understand... I'm not running around writing amendments to the Constitution. What I'm doing is talking about reestablishing Constitutional Republicanism. Because we do not have it today. We can get into that a little bit later. What I'm saying is, unlike our opponents who evade the Constitution, who eviscerate the Constitution, who try to figure out ways to centralize the government as much as they can in violation of the Constitution. I'm saying those of us who believe in individual liberty, and private property rights, and the rule of law, and the Constitution, need to look at the Constitution for answers.

And it provides one under Article 5, two methods for amending the Constitution. One: Two thirds of both houses in Congress...

SEAN HANNITY: As you say in this, we're going to put on the screen...

MARK LEVIN: All right...

SEAN HANNITY: Article V to explain there are two...

MARK LEVIN: Two methods...

SEAN HANNITY: Methods... go ahead...

MARK LEVIN: Right. One of which has been used successfully. We have 27 amendments to the Constitution. One which has not.

But that second method is not radical. It's not weird. It's there because the framers put it there and they put it there for a reason.

The second method for amending the Constitution... the first was two-thirds of Congress proposing amendments to the States, three-fourths of the States ratify.

In this instance, it's two-thirds of the States calling a convention...

Not a constitutional convention. Article V talks about a convention for the purpose of amending the Constitution, proposing amendments. And you still need three-fourths of the States to ratify. So you wouldn't have a runaway convention or anything like that, as we have today a runaway Congress, a runaway Supreme Court, and a runaway bureaucracy and president. This is a system put in place specifically by the framers.

And George Mason insisted on it and got the support of the other members, the other delegates to the Constitutional Convention. He said, "Look. If Congress turns oppressive... if the federal government turns oppressive, what is the recourse other than violence? We have to have a way for this to be addressed."

And his recourse was the States would get together--as they often did, as they did to give birth of the nation--and propose these amendments. And you still need three-fourths of them to approve them.

I didn't want to type all that out, but since nobody wants to watch the video before taking Levin to task, at least the correct idea is now on written record.

Michael

Sounds like the gentleman wants a career--power and money--heading a movement which almost certainly cannot achieve its purported goals. Maybe it'll spark a big debate, but not one involving the nature, need and use of individual human rights. One guy on CNBC made a remark about how maybe we needed a new tea party and presto! the Tea Party was born--and then died down and out. There's not even any presto here, BTW. If you really want to fight for freedom, throw yourself against the federal monster, do something heroic, like Ayn Rand, don't join a movement that essentially demands your passive presence writing checks to your leader(s).

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant:

He would be the last person to board that bus.

I believe you are not judging him correctly,

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant:

He would be the last person to board that bus.

I believe you are not judging him correctly,

A...

And the rest of it? How does paper stop leviathan?

--Brant

watching the vid right now

you protect human rights by controlling the inevitable government forcing it to use its force to that effect--today the baddies are riding that horse to its hopeful demise in fulminating glory

stop: I'm not watching any 41 minute video

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will not get the votes of 36 States needed for Amending or calling a Constitutional Convention.

Calling a constitutional convention may result in the abolition of the current constitution and the establishment of an outright neo-fascist state.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

Paper does not stop leviathan.

The people behind the paper do.

But you need both, not just one or the other. That's why we need moral education and debates along with politics.

There is no fundamental dichotomy between Ayn Rand and Mark Levin on that score. They have philosophical disagreements over Christianity, abortion and so on, but I don't see anything in her writing that is at odds with making a grass-roots movement to amend the Constitution so that it more correctly reflects the intent of the Founding Fathers. In fact, Rand was not a lopsided let's destroy the federal government person. She was actually for it. She was very clear about what she thought its powers and limitations were.

But, no. Just paper will not make people obey anything. So what? In the same manner a wuss-ass milk-toast dictator wannabe will not make people obey. You need people behind power to make it stick. And I mean on a large scale, not just charismatic leaders.

If you want to formalize moral principles like individual rights in a document that lays down the rules for running a country, you still need good people to belong to that country who will pledge allegiance to that document--and mean it. By good people, I refer to people who strive to understand what is good, who try to live by it, who discuss it often, who teach it to their kids, and so on.

Who's job is it to keep the good alive in public discourse? Certainly not the government. It's you and I for starters. Also, preachers, intellectuals, artists, and so on.

I've said it before. One more time won't hurt. If you take a bunch of hardened convicts to a desert island, instruct them in individual rights, tell them they are perfectly free, leave, then come back in 6 months, guess what you will find? Utopia? Heh. You'll find violent gangs warring against each other. That's what.

There are a lot of good people--good people in the sense I just mentioned--who are now being touched by Mark Levin's efforts. Watch the video and listen to some of them if you don't believe me. The tone is far different than a normal guest audience with talking heads show.

I believe the way Levin is planting the restoration seeds of constitutional republicanism is highly effective. (And, of course, he is not the only one.) Look at the sales numbers. His book is on top. No. 1 of ALL books on Amazon. This screenshot if from today--see here:

Levin-LibertyAmendments-AmazonNo1.png

The roots are growing deep, even as others curse the planted seeds because they want harvest now and there is no harvest yet. I further believe the roots from these seeds will sprout a rich garden of great things in our country.

I support what Mark Levin is doing--among other similar efforts. I bought Mark's book and I'm going to read it. I suspect I will like it--a lot.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calling a constitutional convention...

Bob,

This is incorrect. There is no provision for calling a "constitutional convention" in the USA Constitution. Here is the exact language from Article V (my emphasis):

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...

The correct term is "convention for proposing amendments."

The meme of calling this a constitutional convention is scare tactics and nothing more. Especially now in the Digital Information Age where it would be impossible to keep things secret.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

I stopped in a Walmart on my way home to pick up some Poland Spring water to get me through the economic collapse if it were to come in the next few weeks.

I perused the book section and there was Mark Levin's book among the piles of new books for $14.95.

I scooped one up and covered the dust jacket with mylar when I got it home.

I wouldn't have known about the book if it weren't for OL.

I expect to enjoy it. I suspect everyone here knows what I think already.

The book I really want is the one entitled Reclaiming the American Revolution /The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy by Wm J. Watkins, Jr. which lists for $90 and is on amazon for $76.50 but is available from many sources on www.bookfinder.com for as little as $21 PB or $38 HC w DJ

gg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FF:

Levin's approach does not call for a Constitutional convention. If you are going to project a person's opinion, please have the decency and intellectual honesty to project it accurately.

Levin is specific concerning this point, in that he correctly points out that there is no section of the Constitution that permits a "Constitutional convention.":

There is Article V which provides for a convention to consider proposed amendments to the foundational document.

A...

Article V provides for a "Convention for proposing Amendments." The term "Constitutional convention" or "Con-con" is simply a short-hand for that process. Throughout this thread I have repeatedly referred to Article V and thus--your wishes to the contrary--have never misrepresented Levin's position as calling for anything other than the assembly specified in Article V.

Incidentally, the Article V process is widely referred to as a "Constitutional convention," even among Mr. Levin's admirers. See, for example, here and here and here.

Of course, a legitimate concern, not yet addressed on this forum, is what might happen once a convention were in session. Levin seems to think that a runaway convention is improbable because, well, because the Constitution won't permit it.

I'm trying to think of the last time that permanent assembly of politicians in Washington was restrained by the words that follow "We the People."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is for the reader. Sometimes you can type things out to make them REAL OBVIOUS, and it still doesn't help.

Just for the record (my emphasis):


... Here is a direct quote from the opening of the Hannity interview posted near the start of this thread:


MARK LEVIN: ... But that second method is not radical. It's not weird. It's there because the framers put it there and they put it there for a reason.

The second method for amending the Constitution... the first was two-thirds of Congress proposing amendments to the States, three-fourths of the States ratify.

In this instance, it's two-thirds of the States calling a convention...

Not a constitutional convention. Article V talks about a convention for the purpose of amending the Constitution, proposing amendments.

I'll let you, the reader, make of it what you will.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is for the reader. Sometimes you can type things out to make them REAL OBVIOUS, and it still doesn't help.

Just for the record (my emphasis):

... Here is a direct quote from the opening of the Hannity interview posted near the start of this thread:

MARK LEVIN: ... But that second method is not radical. It's not weird. It's there because the framers put it there and they put it there for a reason.

The second method for amending the Constitution... the first was two-thirds of Congress proposing amendments to the States, three-fourths of the States ratify.

In this instance, it's two-thirds of the States calling a convention...

Not a constitutional convention. Article V talks about a convention for the purpose of amending the Constitution, proposing amendments.

I'll let you, the reader, make of it what you will.

Michael

It seems to be semantics more than anything.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

Paper does not stop leviathan.

The people behind the paper do.

But you need both, not just one or the other. That's why we need moral education and debates along with politics.

There is no fundamental dichotomy between Ayn Rand and Mark Levin on that score. They have philosophical disagreements over Christianity, abortion and so on, but I don't see anything in her writing that is at odds with making a grass-roots movement to amend the Constitution so that it more correctly reflects the intent of the Founding Fathers. In fact, Rand was not a lopsided let's destroy the federal government person. She was actually for it. She was very clear about what she thought its powers and limitations were.

But, no. Just paper will not make people obey anything. So what? In the same manner a wuss-ass milk-toast dictator wannabe will not make people obey. You need people behind power to make it stick. And I mean on a large scale, not just charismatic leaders.

If you want to formalize moral principles like individual rights in a document that lays down the rules for running a country, you still need good people to belong to that country who will pledge allegiance to that document--and mean it. By good people, I refer to people who strive to understand what is good, who try to live by it, who discuss it often, who teach it to their kids, and so on.

Who's job is it to keep the good alive in public discourse? Certainly not the government. It's you and I for starters. Also, preachers, intellectuals, artists, and so on.

I've said it before. One more time won't hurt. If you take a bunch of hardened convicts to a desert island, instruct them in individual rights, tell them they are perfectly free, leave, then come back in 6 months, guess what you will find? Utopia? Heh. You'll find violent gangs warring against each other. That's what.

There are a lot of good people--good people in the sense I just mentioned--who are now being touched by Mark Levin's efforts. Watch the video and listen to some of them if you don't believe me. The tone is far different than a normal guest audience with talking heads show.

I believe the way Levin is planting the restoration seeds of constitutional republicanism is highly effective. (And, of course, he is not the only one.) Look at the sales numbers. His book is on top. No. 1 of ALL books on Amazon. This screenshot if from today--see here:

Levin-LibertyAmendments-AmazonNo1.png

The roots are growing deep, even as others curse the planted seeds because they want harvest now and there is no harvest yet. I further believe the roots from these seeds will sprout a rich garden of great things in our country.

I support what Mark Levin is doing--among other similar efforts. I bought Mark's book and I'm going to read it. I suspect I will like it--a lot.

Michael

There appears to be a lot more going on than I've been aware of.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gulch,

I often don't go as far as you do, but liberty-wise, we are definitely on the same team.

And I am an admirer of your enthusiasm. It has perked me up more than once when I was feeling down. I never said anything about this before, but just so you know...

:smile:

Michael

He's numero uno in this department.

--Brant

hands down!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now