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

[BaalChatzaf]

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

That "regional rebellion" killed 4 percent of the population.

It maimed another 6 percent.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

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

The War of Southern Succession was not a "regional rebellion" but an affirmation of the right of states to withdraw from the Union. They lost and that "right" was lost, if it ever existed. The war engulfed the whole country. If no battles were fought in some states they still sent many soldiers into the meat grinder. The "Civil War" was a refutation of the establishment of the federal union under the constitution replacing the Articles of Confederation and an affirmation of the inexorable seduction of political power.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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

FF,

Neither of the above. It's something you are probably not familiar with.

I've seen first-hand things with my own eyes.

The view from the ground, so to speak. Not from the heights of your elite wannabe perspective (which I used to do, but eschewed because it's so damn phony).

Michael

[Francisco Ferrer]

FF,

Neither of the above. It's something you are probably not familiar with.

I've seen first-hand things with my own eyes.

The view from the ground, so to speak. Not from the heights of your elite wannabe perspective (which I used to do, but eschewed because it's so damn phony).

Michael

You claim that the "Liberty" Amendments will be accomplished through the grassroots, not through the major parties.

1. How, then, will this effort avoid the pitfalls of the Tea Party movement, now moribund and fatally co-opted by the Republican Party, which wrapped itself in the name and promptly buried the principles?

2. How do the grassroots call a convention for amendments? Only two-thirds of the states can do this, and state legislatures are run by the same two parties that have turned Washington into a seat of despotism. Moreover, rather than wanting to pull away from the federal octopus, the states since World War II have grown hopelessly addicted to the money the feds pump back to them in return for a surrender of autonomy.

3. What is the track record of the grassroots in rolling back the federal government? When was the last time we saw anything like that? And why, after the public has twice sent Obama to rule us, should we suppose majorities in two-thirds of the states are likely to want anything like the original Republic?

I am sure that a person like yourself, a man on the ground in close touch with the grassroots, can provide specific responses to these questions.

[BaalChatzaf]

The answer is simple. Bloody Revolution. It is not a good answer, because at this juncture the bad guys would win. They have Tanks, Cannons, Bombs and UAVs. Even John Galt and his static electric generator could not prevail against that.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that the Tree of Liberty is nourished by the blood of tyrants and patriots.

Ba'al Chatzaf.

[Brant Gaede]

It's the anti-statists against the statists under the tent of freedom vs. tyranny. Or it should be under that tent. If you aren't a freedom fighter for freedom the freedom fighter against freedom is the only one engaged. You're just being paved over.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

The answer is simple. Bloody Revolution. It is not a good answer, because at this juncture the bad guys would win. They have Tanks, Cannons, Bombs and UAVs. Even John Galt and his static electric generator could not prevail against that.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that the Tree of Liberty is nourished by the blood of tyrants and patriots.

Ba'al Chatzaf.

Homeland Security will beat your ass in a heartbeat with its growing domestic army manufactured for just that purpose.

--Brant

and can do it right now!

[BaalChatzaf]

The answer is simple. Bloody Revolution. It is not a good answer, because at this juncture the bad guys would win. They have Tanks, Cannons, Bombs and UAVs. Even John Galt and his static electric generator could not prevail against that.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that the Tree of Liberty is nourished by the blood of tyrants and patriots.

Ba'al Chatzaf.

Homeland Security will beat your ass in a heartbeat with its growing domestic army manufactured for just that purpose.

--Brant

and can do it right now!

I am afraid you are right.

Soft proto-fascism (which is what we have) is far more effective in controlling the land than the KGB and the Stasi were in Commie Land.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Francisco Ferrer]

"Soft proto-fascism" is correct, although Ayn Rand was not afraid to call it outright fascism a half-century ago.

Let me make it clear that the political goals of the late Herbert Marcuse are the antithesis of mine. However, in his otherwise execrable "Repressive Tolerance," Marcuse makes an important observation about how contemporary Western democracies create a false sense of openness and tolerance while at the same time marginalizing real dissent:

Under the rule of monopolistic media--themselves the mere instruments of economic and political power--a mentality is created for which right and wrong, true and false are predefined wherever they affect the vital interests of the society. This is, prior to all expression and communication, a matter of semantics: the blocking of effective dissent, of the recognition of that which is not of the Establishment which begins in the. language that is publicized and administered. The meaning of words is rigidly stabilized. Rational persuasion, persuasion to the opposite is all but precluded. The avenues of entrance are closed to the meaning of words and ideas other than the established one--established by the publicity of the powers that be, and verified in their practices. Other words can be spoken and heard, other ideas can be expressed, but, at the massive scale of the conservative majority (outside such enclaves as the intelligentsia), they are immediately 'evaluated' (i.e. automatically understood) in terms of the public language--a language which determines 'a priori' the direction in which the thought process moves. Thus the process of reflection ends where it started: in the given conditions and relations. Self-validating, the argument. of the discussion repels the contradiction because the antithesis is redefined in terms of the thesis. For example, thesis: we work for peace; antithesis: we prepare for war (or even: we wage war); unification of opposites; preparing for war is working for peace. Peace is redefined as necessarily, in the prevailing situation, including preparation for war (or even war) and in this Orwellian form, the meaning of the word 'peace' is stabilized. Thus, the basic vocabulary of the Orwellian language operates as a priori categories of understanding: preforming all content. These conditions invalidate the logic of tolerance which involves the rational development of meaning and precludes the 'closing of meaning. Consequently, persuasion through discussion and the equal presentation of opposites (even where it is really, equal) easily lose their liberating force as factors of understanding and learning; they are far more likely to strengthen the established thesis and to repel the alternatives.

The greatest problem we face is that no one dares call it fascism in polite society. Americans are in chains and shake their manacled fists at anyone who suggests we live in some condition other than freedom.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

FF,

How how how?

The first step is to distance the efforts from people like you.

You're not a builder. You're an effete critic and nothing more.

Michael

[Francisco Ferrer]

FF,

How how how?

The first step is to distance the efforts from people like you.

You're not a builder. You're an effete critic and nothing more.

Michael

And what is the second step and the third?

The political establishment is dominated by well entrenched forces who are quite good at grabbing power and holding onto it. (The reason for this lamentable state of affairs is simple: people who enjoy telling others what to do seize the reins of power; those who like minding their own business don't.)

Simply declaring that we don't need the establishment or the major parties for change because the common man will do it, doesn't express anything other than a wish.

Is the ad hominem all that a grassroots expert has in his bag of tricks?

[Selene]

No, Michael calls them like he sees them.

You do understand that your posts drip with condescension?

Additionally, your assertion that the Tea-party has been co-opted by the Republican Party and has lost it's potency on the ground is built on what data?

A...

[Francisco Ferrer]

No, Michael calls them like he sees them.

You do understand that your posts drip with condescension?

If you or MSK have a logical rebuttal put it forth. Name-calling is not an answer.

Additionally, your assertion that the Tea-party has been co-opted by the Republican Party and has lost it's potency on the ground is built on what data?

A...

According to Wiki, the Tea Party movement has "sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009."

Yet, as Obama has grabbed more and more power from the states and the people, there has been not one major Tea Party protest in the past three and a half years.

As for political candidates, 49 members of the House (all Republicans) and five members of the Senate have been associated with the Tea Party. Yet the Tea Party Caucus is now dead. And no legislation has been passed or even pushed by the Republican leadership that can even faintly be categorized as a rollback of federal power.

[BaalChatzaf]

No, Michael calls them like he sees them.

You do understand that your posts drip with condescension?

If you or MSK have a logical rebuttal put it forth. Name-calling is not an answer.

Additionally, your assertion that the Tea-party has been co-opted by the Republican Party and has lost it's potency on the ground is built on what data?

A...

According to Wiki, the Tea Party movement has "sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009."

Yet, as Obama has grabbed more and more power from the states and the people, there has been not one major Tea Party protest in the past three and a half years.

As for political candidates, 49 members of the House (all Republicans) and five members of the Senate have been associated with the Tea Party. Yet the Tea Party Caucus is now dead. And no legislation has been passed or even pushed by the Republican leadership that can even faintly be categorized as a rollback of federal power.

The T-party which was initially libertarian in its makeup and intentions was hijacked by main line Republican Jesus Phreaks.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Not really. The main agenda is still small government, low taxes, Constitution. There's even a prominent Muslim who is a staunch Tea Party supporter. Lots of atheists. Blacks. Hispanics. Women. And so on. (You won't see the mainstream discuss this, but it's true.) The Jesus people simply stopped being intimidated into silence. But the Tea Party is far, far different than a religious movement.

FF,

Geez, dude. You have a really thin skin for someone who dumps on others in just about every post you make. I guess you object when it comes back at you. Somehow that's unfair, huh?

Damn, life's a bitch.

Adam,

I think it's beyond condescension. This dude is so caught up in framing his superior standing to others (or so he thinks) in every idea he mentions, it's automatic. He gets about as close to the old Objectivist concept of social metaphysics as I have seen in a long time. And I don't really put much stock in the concept of social metaphysics. This case is so blatant, though, I have to see what I see. I cannot ignore my own eyes.

FF is intelligent, but it's not easy to discuss any idea with him without him covering the concepts with a ton of petty self-serving bullshit. I'm getting too old (or maybe just too fed up) to babysit people like that.

The line from a Beatles song comes to mind: "All the lonely people... Where do they all come from?"

I'm an optimist at heart. Learning this stuff was hard for me when I was like that. But I did learn. And if I could learn this, anyone can. Even FF.

I'll keep calling it as I see it and hope things get better.

Michael

[Selene]

Of course.

You have taught me quite a bit about important paths to consider taking.

I am always amazed by how much one can learn from everyone you interact with on a daily basis.

My gut tells me that FF ain't the larnen kind!

[BaalChatzaf]

I'm an optimist at heart. Learning this stuff was hard for me when I was like that. But I did learn. And if I could learn this, anyone can. Even FF.

I'll keep calling it as I see it and hope things get better.

Michael

I am an optimist in the long term. I think stupidity and evil will consume themselves (even of their destruction is not permanent). Contradictions cannot be maintained in the steady state.

In the shorter haul I have no reason to be optimistic. I think things will get worse before they get better.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[GALTGULCH8]

It is small comfort to know that once the world suffers the loss of freedom all over and we descend into the second Dark Age across the globe that ultimately it will fail, after how many centuries, and freedom will re emerge.

That has happened after the Fall of the once free Roman Empire in reality and again in a novelette entitled Anthem.

Let us spare our progeny from the horror of a Dark Age.

We should make sure the growing number of student activists at www.YALiberty.org and www.studentsforliberty.org read Atlas Shrugged and The Objectivist Newsletter etc.

Then the day will come when Article V is exercised to amend the constitution and set us all free, once and for all.

gg

[Francisco Ferrer]

You have a really thin skin for someone who dumps on others in just about every post you make.

This dude is so caught up in framing his superior standing to others (or so he thinks) in every idea he mentions, it's automatic. He gets about as close to the old Objectivist concept of social metaphysics as I have seen in a long time.

FF is intelligent, but it's not easy to discuss any idea with him without him covering the concepts with a ton of petty self-serving bullshit.

Your response to the questions I raised about the difficulty of the amendment process in Posts 154 and 161 is

1. You have a thin skin

2. You are a social metaphysician

3. You are self-serving

I guess you think that proves there are no weaknesses in Levin's proposal.

[BaalChatzaf]

As Dr. Leonard McCoy often said to Capt. Kirk:

He's dead, Jim.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

FF,

Neither of the above. It's something you are probably not familiar with.

I've seen first-hand things with my own eyes.

The view from the ground, so to speak. Not from the heights of your elite wannabe perspective (which I used to do, but eschewed because it's so damn phony).

Michael

You claim that the "Liberty" Amendments will be accomplished through the grassroots, not through the major parties.

1. How, then, will this effort avoid the pitfalls of the Tea Party movement, now moribund and fatally co-opted by the Republican Party, which wrapped itself in the name and promptly buried the principles?

2. How do the grassroots call a convention for amendments? Only two-thirds of the states can do this, and state legislatures are run by the same two parties that have turned Washington into a seat of despotism. Moreover, rather than wanting to pull away from the federal octopus, the states since World War II have grown hopelessly addicted to the money the feds pump back to them in return for a surrender of autonomy.

3. What is the track record of the grassroots in rolling back the federal government? When was the last time we saw anything like that? And why, after the public has twice sent Obama to rule us, should we suppose majorities in two-thirds of the states are likely to want anything like the original Republic?

I am sure that a person like yourself, a man on the ground in close touch with the grassroots, can provide specific responses to these questions.

This country was born in heaven and now is almost in hell. Maybe seeing the devil will make it run back upstairs.

--Brant

[jts]

FF,

Neither of the above. It's something you are probably not familiar with.

I've seen first-hand things with my own eyes.

The view from the ground, so to speak. Not from the heights of your elite wannabe perspective (which I used to do, but eschewed because it's so damn phony).

Michael

You claim that the "Liberty" Amendments will be accomplished through the grassroots, not through the major parties.

1. How, then, will this effort avoid the pitfalls of the Tea Party movement, now moribund and fatally co-opted by the Republican Party, which wrapped itself in the name and promptly buried the principles?

2. How do the grassroots call a convention for amendments? Only two-thirds of the states can do this, and state legislatures are run by the same two parties that have turned Washington into a seat of despotism. Moreover, rather than wanting to pull away from the federal octopus, the states since World War II have grown hopelessly addicted to the money the feds pump back to them in return for a surrender of autonomy.

3. What is the track record of the grassroots in rolling back the federal government? When was the last time we saw anything like that? And why, after the public has twice sent Obama to rule us, should we suppose majorities in two-thirds of the states are likely to want anything like the original Republic?

I am sure that a person like yourself, a man on the ground in close touch with the grassroots, can provide specific responses to these questions.

One example of grassroots is oathkeepers.

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.

2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people

3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.

10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Get the full version here.

If the oathkeepers movement grows enough, it will make the likes of Hitler and Stalin powerless. And without resorting to violence.

This is one example of grassroots. Probably there are or could be other examples.

[Francisco Ferrer]

One example of grassroots is oathkeepers.

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.

2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people

3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.

10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Get the full version here.

If the oathkeepers movement grows enough, it will make the likes of Hitler and Stalin powerless. And without resorting to violence.

This is one example of grassroots. Probably there are or could be other examples.

I am familiar with the Oathkeepers' stand and admire it.

Of course, resisting the disarming of the populace, martial law, detention of American citizens, etc. is really not about rolling back the government in its present form, but just saying "no" when the hobnail boots are already on our necks.

[BaalChatzaf]

This country was born in heaven and now is almost in hell. Maybe seeing the devil will make it run back upstairs.

--Brant

There are a lot of Comache, Lakhota, and Cherokee who would disagree with that.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

FF,

Neither of the above. It's something you are probably not familiar with.

I've seen first-hand things with my own eyes.

The view from the ground, so to speak. Not from the heights of your elite wannabe perspective (which I used to do, but eschewed because it's so damn phony).

Michael

You claim that the "Liberty" Amendments will be accomplished through the grassroots, not through the major parties.

1. How, then, will this effort avoid the pitfalls of the Tea Party movement, now moribund and fatally co-opted by the Republican Party, which wrapped itself in the name and promptly buried the principles?

2. How do the grassroots call a convention for amendments? Only two-thirds of the states can do this, and state legislatures are run by the same two parties that have turned Washington into a seat of despotism. Moreover, rather than wanting to pull away from the federal octopus, the states since World War II have grown hopelessly addicted to the money the feds pump back to them in return for a surrender of autonomy.

3. What is the track record of the grassroots in rolling back the federal government? When was the last time we saw anything like that? And why, after the public has twice sent Obama to rule us, should we suppose majorities in two-thirds of the states are likely to want anything like the original Republic?

I am sure that a person like yourself, a man on the ground in close touch with the grassroots, can provide specific responses to these questions.

One example of grassroots is oathkeepers.

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.

2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people

3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.

10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Get the full version here.

If the oathkeepers movement grows enough, it will make the likes of Hitler and Stalin powerless. And without resorting to violence.

This is one example of grassroots. Probably there are or could be other examples.

Let's get ready to rumble!

--Brant