Three Courses Among Which None Wish to Choose

Easier not to choose?

I’ve remained still these last weeks waiting to see the outcome of things in my own world.  My wife suffered a heart attack in early December, and while she survived and is on the mend, it put me into a pensive mood during which I’ve said little while simply absorbing what’s going on in the world around us.  I don’t have all of the answers, but what I do know is that we have a choice to make.  It struck me with a certain clarity when I realized that for all the efforts of good and conscientious conservatives, we’re barely making a dent.  The American people are thoroughly dispirited in a way not seen since Carter, and maybe even the pre-war era of FDR’s long and loathsome administration.  Nothing is improving.  Jobs are scarce.  The printed currency is piling up, and with it a stack of IOUs that would reach from Earth to the no-longer-planet Pluto.  What strikes me most is the unwillingness to choose, perhaps because all of the options seem so depressingly bad.  We are now at a stage in our civilization’s collapse that we must fight, reform, or surrender.  Make no mistake about it, as while we defer the choice, the available options only become more severe in their fullest meanings.  In time, the choice will be taken from us, and surrender will be replaced by slavery, whether we’d choose it or not. Even now, the embrace of the police state is transforming from a gentle, confidence-instilling hug into a death-grip from which it seems there may be no escape.

Maybe it’s time you had that blunt bit of talk with loved-ones who may not realize what’s afoot.    I know I’ve tried.  Some never listen because it’s too painful.  More often, because it is a complicated problem with implications that will reach into every life, most refuse to consider it.  Our nation is well on its way to becoming Rome.  We witness now the harbingers of our moral collapse, with an unconscionable display of motherly pride in a son who literally prostituted himself to homosexual pornography to support her household.  Lot’s wife had at least the advantage of a husband who would tell her to avert her eyes.  This scandalous decline in our cultural moral standards has left us with a nation that is rudderless not only in Washington DC, but in Everytown, USA, where plain, ordinary citizens no longer seem to muster much moral indignation about anything of consequence, while others rush to uphold the vile, the obnoxious, and the nonsensical.

Don’t misunderstand me: There are still many Americans who feel as I do, and you may well be among them, yet we are a declining proportion of a population overwhelmingly beset with endless distractions that will mean nothing when they find themselves at some future date languishing in the gutter.  I don’t believe it must end this way, but if we don’t choose another course, and soon, it will end this way.  As one friend constantly reminds me, “nothing ends well or it would never end.”  There’s a certain pragmatism to that view against which I would like to rebel, but like most of my readers, I feel the crushing weight of history pressing down upon us.

Will we fight?  Will a beleaguered people take up arms?  Many an American has made oaths, not all of them idle, about the nature of how they will go down, but I wonder if when faced with it, how many will simply fold.  More, one could wonder if this is not precisely what certain statist elements are attempting to provoke.  Against the combined forces of the modern government, who could long endure?  Who would desire this sort of outcome?  Who would want a fractured nation consumed by civil war?  Still, if it became the only viable option for our survival, I wonder how many would stand and fight, and for what they’d be fighting.

Will we surrender?  Will we yield to the historic march of statism, giving up first the last measures of our personal sovereignty; our property, such slim wealth as we may have managed to preserve, and all personal discretion to a police state that will command our every action, and make our every choice?   The evidence today would suggest that this shall be our path.  Despite its clear predatory aims against our liberties, observe the fact that at least one-third of Americans still believe the failed roll-out of the monstrous “Obama-care” should continue.  Such people do not deserve freedom, and will not long cling to it, precisely because such measures of freedom they tend to demand are merely vestiges of the concept.

Will we reform?  Here lies the last option for salvaging the nation, yet it is also the historically slimmest probability. The singular advantage we may possess when compared to all the collapsing civilizations that have before us descended into ash is that our basic law has been so difficult to amend that it has succeeded only twenty-seven times in more than two-hundred years.  What this means is that some vital portions have been left intact, leaving to us an escape-clause of sorts, and a method by which to reach from the grave’s brink at the last moment to reform our dying civilization.  This makes us undeniably unique with respect to opportunity, but the question remains as to whether we can summon the character in sufficient numbers to reach for that constitutional kill-switch.

I have become convinced that while we may tinker around with this office or that, and while we may occasionally elect a competent, sincere conservative, the federal authorities in Washington rule almost without respect to our laws, never mind our wishes.  Mark Levin has stated often and with growing impatience that we will almost certainly fail to reform by focusing on the federal government and its elected office-holders.  We must reach into the constitutional tool-kit and utilize its most powerful weapon against the centralization of power in Washington DC: Article V. holds the entire mechanism for reforms we seek.  It is not an easy road, and there will be no instant gratification, but if we are to overcome the gaping maw of the all-powerful government now consuming us, it is upon the authority of Article V that our salvation may rest. If you’ve not yet read The Liberty Amendments, I would urge you to consider picking up a copy soon.

Even now, we can observe the Obama administration’s predatory, despotic intentions.  While a review board declared that the NSA’s spying on US citizens should cease, the Obama administration rejected the board’s conclusions.  While we watch, the Obama administration makes it plain that they are checking their enemies list and checking it twice, and the only way to escape it is to be perpetually nice to the administration and its aims.  No dissent of any sort will be tolerated, whether you’re Dinesh D’Souza or a Tea Party activist.  Worse, the Republicans on Capitol Hill are joining in, with Mitch McConnell saying the Tea Party needs a punch in the nose.  There is really no longer any question about it: The war on the American people, their culture, their traditions, and their dreams is in full force, never mind the complete destruction of any prosperity they had once known.  There is no accident in it, and it’s all going according to plan.  My question for you remains: Will we submit to this historic script, with our part as helpless victims played to the hilt?

It’s time for us to consider whether we will be led down that same old path.  We’re barely more than nine months from the mid-terms, and the evidence is that we are yielding momentum as the Republicans in Washington DC continue to throttle our efforts. One might wonder how this can be, but I understand it: We are exhausted, our morale has taken a beating, and more and more of us find we’re under an economic strain that makes other efforts seem too tiring.  Some of us have noticed the expanding police state, deciding it best to lie low and to refrain from open activism.  Myself, I feel as though I must now get all of my personal effects in order, in the manner of a soldier preparing for a deployment to war.  Sometimes, I wonder if that’s merely my perception, but something tells me I’m not alone.

Like any other movement, it’s time to assess our position, our options, and our next move.  Waiting for the “Republicans” to save us clearly won’t yield any fruit, so we must ask whether we now huddle in darkness waiting for the end, or instead rise in some fashion. I credit Mark Levin for reminding us of the one way out of all of this that remains, but now the challenge is before us:  We have a choice, and we’d best make it before it’s made for us.

Like 7 People Liked this
avataravataravataravataravataravataravatar

About the author

markamerica


  • JimSherwood3

    You and your wife will have many prayers offered up on your behalf. More people are connecting with the “getting affairs in order ” than you may imagine. Operation American Spring is building momentum daily. http://www.patiotsforamerica.ning.com

    Yes Obama has let Heinrich Himmler aka Eric Holder loose to destroy any and all opposition through his sorry excuse for a “Justice” Department. Now not only every agency of the DHS(Gestapo), but also the FEC , and EPA.

    I think your observations are dead on.

    • http://www.markamerica.com/ Mark America

      Thank you Jim. Yes,, the government is now going into overdrive clamping down on people in every way, from every direction, all at once, and they’re using the power of the state to oppress and silence people in an unprecedented fashion. When I think of the purge of senior military officers, and I realize that what is being done is to “fundamentally transform” our nation, my skin crawls in revulsion and my anger rises to new heights. As my friend reminds me, “nothing ends well, or it would never end.” I think I’m almost ready.

  • the unit

    Sorry for the health crisis, but glad your wife in on the mend. As posted by another before, our prayers will be with you guys.

    • http://www.markamerica.com/ Mark America

      Thanks Unit! Glad to see you still come around despite my inactivity.

  • Guest

    Mark, so sorry to hear about your wife’s health problems. I will keep your family in my prayers.
    We must keep ourselves strong physically for this fight as the worry exhausts us physically. I believe your wife’s heart attack has sapped you of a lot of your strength.

    I am more encouraged than ever before that the tide has turned especially since the latest polls have shown that 70% of the nation believes the greatest threat to the nation at this time is “Big Government.”

    I was over at the leftist site the New Republic 3 days ago and saw over 6 pages of comments from leftists bashing the “Boy King” for his incompetence and lack of executive skills. There were even comments that Palin warned us about him, Obama’s just not smart, Palin is smarter than Obama, even that Palin had excellent executive skills, the media was his cheerleader, etc. I never thought I’d see the day.

    Everyone also has the corrupt crony capitalist gopE number too. We have known for quite some time that there is only 1 party in the “District of Corruption.”

    The pathetic talk of Chuck U. Screwmer before the Center for American Oppression tells me just how threatened the permanent political class is. They have admitted that the TEA Party is the only thing that has stopped their total transformation of America. Screwmer desperately needs to get the base back in line and pick a target and polarize it. However, I think it’s too late. The comments I was reading over at the New Republic were not Big Government is out but, elitist, Ivy League, Big Government is out.

    It’s always darkest just before the dawn. “Don’t worry. Be happy.”

    May the Lord Bless you and your entire family during this difficult time.

  • the unit

    After this I quit ’til later. But have to comment because of a comment after story. Not breaking news, but breaking wind. Lol for me. Man did I need that!!!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/24/andrea-mitchell-justin-bieber-nsa_n_4657934.html

  • https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/ The Blue Tail Gadfly

    State Nullification of unconstitutional federal laws is the proper rememdy, not a suicidal Constitutional Convention in this highly politicized atmosphere. There is nothing wrong with the Constitution, other than needing to be obeyed and enforced, to which those same problems WILL carry over to their new Constitution or Amendments because it does not and cannot fix the underlying problem which is us, ‘We The People’.

    “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it.” Judge Learned Hand, The Spirit of Liberty

    Yet Mark Levin and others say it will, and in doing so, reject all human wisdom. They are leading everyone on a wild goose chase while the real problem is still eroding the foundations of our founding principles.

    There are other factions out there to fear than just Democrats who want to destroy or fundamentally alter our Constitution, don’t give them the vehicle to do it. Libertarian Anarchists and Christian Postmillenialists are the driving force on the right, along with the RINO moderates. Think about it, Conservatives cannot even control a Republican National Convention, let alone a Constitutional Convention. If someone thinks that the RINO’s will not make backroom deals and compromise with the socialists, they are living in a different reality.

    It also doesn’t look like Mark Levin’s “assurances” has dissuaded George Soros either. Did you know that Soros has joined in calling for a Article V Convention and that Hawaii has passed legislation calling for one? Hawaii has also proposed their own set of “liberty amendments”, they will make ObamaCare constitutional and replace the electoral college with a popular vote for the POTUS , i.g. a Democracy instead of a Constitutional Republic.

    Stop trusting the the “conservative” talking heads, they are the modern day pied pipers. Mark Levin refuses to debate anyone over the issue and always resorts to ad-hominem attacks. That’s a sign of a radical hiding from the truth, not a conservative.

    http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2013/12/18/the-convention-of-states-scam-the-war-over-the-constitution-and-how-the-states-sold-the-reserved-powers-to-the-feds/

    I pray for your wife’s recovery and your family’s happiness. God bless.

    ~BTG

    “The Constitution has enemies, secret and professed…They have hot heads and cold hearts. They are rash, reckless, and fierce for change, and with no affection for the existing institutions of their country… Other enemies there are, more cool, and with more calculation. These have a deeper and more fixed and dangerous purpose… There are those in the country, who profess, in their own words, even to hate the Constitution…

    Friends of the Constitution must rally and unite…act, with immovable firmness, like a band of brothers, with moderation and
    conciliation… looking only to the great object set before them, the preservation of the Constitution, bequeathed to them by their ancestors.” ~Daniel Webster

    • http://www.markamerica.com/ Mark America

      There’s no such thing as a “suicidal constitutional convention.” Article V provides for states proposing amendments, and any amendments put forward by 2/3s of the states thus assembled would require ratification by 3/4s of the states. There is plenty wrong with the constitution. Our founders were imperfect men, but some of them, including Mason and Henry understood the inevitable abuses that would arise under it. Get your head together. Do you think 1790 America was less politicized? I’d say it may have been moreso. There was certainly a higher degree of citizen involvement. Politics IS the process in question. I don’t know why you fear an amending convention lest you’ve swallowed the koolaid on the irrational notion of a “runaway.” It’s preposterous, and would mean that we couldn’t find 13 states of 50 to stop it. Sorry, but that’s nonsensical.

      • https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/ The Blue Tail Gadfly

        What? Don’t have anything to say about State Nullification?
        Funny how your side always ignores that rightful remedy in favor of the nuclear option, aka a Constitutional Convention.

        Why is that?

        How do you plan to fix the voting problem, you know, the Citizens who elected these corrupt politicians in the first place? The same uneducated and unprincipled electorate will still exist, are you going to take the vote from them?

        If you don’t, your little “revolution” will be very short lived.

        Or does Mark Levin’s “Liberty” Amendments magically fix all that?

        Of course, if you educated the public first, there would be no need for an Article V Convention, aka A Constitutional Convention.

        Not even George Soros is buying into your sides “assurances” that it can’t turn into a runaway convention. Mark Levin’s book has been refuted for the radical nonsense it is and you refuse to accept it. Either you are being willfully ignorant or are being dishonest of what you actually represent here.

        http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2013/09/15/mark-levin-refuted-keep-the-feds-in-check-with-nullification-not-amendments/

        Re: ” I don’t know why you fear an amending convention lest you’ve swallowed the koolaid on the irrational notion of a “runaway.”

        Perhaps if you actually researched the subject instead of merely relying on Mark Levin’s fallacious talking points, you would know why. If your anti-federalist sensibilities will allow, here is James Madison’s reasons:

        http://www.familytales.org/dbDisplay.php?id=ltr_mad1627

        • http://www.markamerica.com/ Mark America

          “What? Don’t have anything to say about State Nullification?
          Funny how your side always ignores that rightful remedy in favor of the nuclear option, aka a Constitutional Convention.”

          “Why is that?”

          My side? Where may I find “nullification” in the constitution? Can you point that one out to me? Article VIII, perhaps? I think there exists greater grounds for secession than for nullification.

          Perhaps you can find a brave governor willing to interpose in protection of his/her state’s residents when they decide to “nullify” the law in question. It may be a “natural right,” but so is keeping the fruits of one’s labor, so why don’t you demonstrate this process by nullifying the IRS? I’ll send you a care package every month you serve in federal prison, having demonstrated your natural right.

          The notion of state governments’ interposition is, like nullification, a fantasy that would require an almost instantaneous refusal of state and local governments everywhere simultaneously refusing to enforce federal law, on behalf of a people who would likewise in perfect unison decide a law violated their natural rights. Otherwise, Washington DC responds to such actions by declaring a state or states in insurrection, and then we know how that ends. Got it? Fantasy…

          “How do you plan to fix the voting problem, you know, the Citizens who elected these corrupt politicians in the first place? The same uneducated and unprincipled electorate will still exist, are you going to take the vote from them?”

          This is always a problem. Will it be easier to get the American people to support the legal, constitutional amendment process, or do you suppose they’ll more easily be convinced to go along with your nullification?

          “If you don’t, your little “revolution” will be very short lived.”

          Not nearly so short as your “nullification sit-in.”

          I would suspect that gaining the cooperation of sufficient states to hold an amending convention would be rather more likely than aggregating enough state and local governments to “nullify” federal law.

          “Or does Mark Levin’s “Liberty” Amendments magically fix all that?”

          Levin doesn’t claim magic, insofar as I’m aware.

          “Of course, if you educated the public first, there would be no need for an Article V Convention, aka A Constitutional Convention.”

          True, but then, the same applies to an even greater extent to the idea of nullification.

          “Not even George Soros is buying into your sides “assurances” that it can’t turn into a runaway convention. Mark Levin’s book has been refuted for the radical nonsense it is and you refuse to accept it. Either you are being willfully ignorant or are being dishonest of what you actually represent here.”

          http://publiushuldah.wordpress

          Radical nonsense? I can find lawful basis for everything Levin contends. I cannot find a single instance where the federal government did not respond violently to some attempt at nullification.

          “Re: ” I don’t know why you fear an amending convention lest you’ve swallowed the koolaid on the irrational notion of a “runaway.”

          “Perhaps if you actually researched the subject instead of merely relying on Mark Levin’s fallacious talking points, you would know why. If your anti-federalist sensibilities will allow, here is James Madison’s reasons:”

          http://www.familytales.org/dbD…”

          I am in many respects “anti-federalist” in precisely the manner of George Mason and Patrick Henry, and for the same reasons. Imagining that I’ve never researched the topic independent of Levin suggests a certain hubris you shouldn’t so carelessly display. Just a thought…

          • https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/ The Blue Tail Gadfly

            Your rhetoric against State Nullification is self-refuting.

            According to you, since the Declaration of Independence is not in the Constitution, we have no natural rights at all, i.g. unalienable rights. Hence, the Bill of Rights was granted to us from the Almighty Federal Government, to which they can be taken away at anytime they please.

            Re: “Radical nonsense? I can find lawful basis for everything Levin contends.”

            No one is saying that the Article V process isn’t lawful, but just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. Since Congress has the power to declare war, again according to your reasoning, they could declare as many wars as they want without being considered radicals.

            The one thing you can’t find is real evidence to support Mark Levin’s fallacious claims for calling for one. BTW, the States only submit an Application to Congress, IT IS STILL CONGRESS THAT CALLS IT! There is no Convention of the States, that is Rob Natelson’s fantasy which Mark Levin has so eagerly joined.

            I have given you the link to James Madison’s own words warning against the dangers of another Convention. That would be the James Madison, the Chief Architect of the Constitution, not Patrick Henry who was in love with the Articles of Confederation which failed in less than ten years.

            Re: “Imagining that I’ve never researched the topic independent of Levin suggests a certain hubris you shouldn’t so carelessly display.”

            Mind sharing your sources so I can be as convinced as you?

            • http://www.markamerica.com/ Mark America

              “Your rhetoric against State Nullification is self-refuting.”

              Funny, I believe that was the point I was making about your charges against the Art V. process.

              “According to you, since the Declaration of Independence is not in the Constitution, we have no natural rights at all, i.g. unalienable rights. Hence, the Bill of Rights was granted to us from the Almighty Federal Government, to which they can be taken away at anytime they please.”

              Not at all. I’m merely pointing out that in order for our natural rights to have force of law backing them up, they must be codified somewhere. I too see this as a flaw in our legal system, but flawed though it may be, that’s the way it is. In theory, you’re right about natural rights, but in practice, don’t go into a federal, state, or local court citing your natural rights without some specific reference to that right in law/caselaw, or you’re probably going to lose.

              “No one is saying that the Article V process isn’t lawful, but just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. Since Congress has the power to declare war, again according to your reasoning, they could declare as many wars as they want without being considered radicals.”

              I daresay that once again, I am perplexed by your resistance to facts. You(and your cohorts)imagine into existence a procedure for “nullification” the only precedents for which resulted in federal intervention in states with the states as the clear losers, yet you tell me that because a thing exists in the constitution does not mean it should be used. It is there. It was intended to be used, particularly in the cases of egregious federal overreach.

              “The one thing you can’t find is real evidence to support Mark Levin’s fallacious claims for calling for one. BTW, the States only submit an Application to Congress, IT IS STILL CONGRESS THAT CALLS IT! There is no Convention of the States, that is Rob Natelson’s fantasy which Mark Levin has so eagerly joined.”

              I find your view of this perplexing. Congress calls it as a procedural matter. There is no approval/disapproval by Congress. Nowhere in Article V is such a process described or envisioned. This is because Mason, who insisted upon this Article, pointed out to the states that without this Article, they would have no other recourse should the feds become overly aggressive.

              “I have given you the link to James Madison’s own words warning against the dangers of another Convention. That would be the James Madison, the Chief Architect of the Constitution, not Patrick Henry who was in love with the Articles of Confederation which failed in less than ten years.”

              The articles of confederation “failed” in less than ten years for structural reasons. Nevertheless, Madison signed on to Article V, and endorsed it, whatever trepidation he may have had. Madison may not have wanted another constitutional convention, but an amending convention of the states is not quite the same, is it? My point about Henry, Mason, et al is that they virtually predicted by the numbers the failings of this constitution. I am not among those who would destroy it, but simply buttress it against further federal incursions into legislative territory that was clearly reserved to the states.

              “Mind sharing your sources so I can be as convinced as you?”

              Sure. Let’s start with an easy one: US Constitution, Article V.

              “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, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, also as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”

              Despite the attempts of some people, this article makes plain the procedure. Let’s tear it apart, shall we?
              The congress shall propose amendments to this constitution(whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, OR
              on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, SHALL call a convention for proposing amendments,

              Let’s stop there a moment to point out some obvious things for those who may not understand the english language, and its uses of the day. When one sees an “OR,” it is signifying that the clauses on either side are equal. Let us also notice that “sHALL” is a legal word of command that removes all discretion from the intended actor. As in “Congress SHALL call a convention for proposing amendments…” So Congress has no choice in the matter. Upon application from 2/3s of the states, they SHALL call for a convention, and their role in this process is at an end, except for their proposal of the ratification process(state conventions or legislatures.)

              In either mode for amending the constitution, the same ratification process is required”

              “Which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, also as part of this constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by Congress;”

              This article is actually rather simple, despite the difficulties some seem to have in grasping it. One needn’t be a legal scholar, but merely literate.

              • https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/ The Blue Tail Gadfly

                You can’t argue with someone who is intentionally trying to mislead, deceive, or refuses to reason well. You were proactively supporting Mark Levin’s “Liberty” Amendments before his book was even released, using Levin’s talking points. You started with the conclusion and are trying to make the premise sound, aka circular reasoning. Problem is, you will never get 2+2 to equal 5. Facts are stubborn things.

                And I see you failed to cite your other sources that you claim led to your erroneous conclusions. All you have given is you opinion with only Mark Levin’s fallacious talking points to back it up.

                You nor Levin can guarantee anything once a Convention is called, all the false assertions that it can be controlled is pure malarkey. When delegates were sent with explicit instructions to only recommend changes to the Articles of Confederation, they found the Articles unworkable and so wrote an entirely new constitution.

                What does Mark Levin say to that? he denies that it was a runaway convention. Despite Levin’s attempts at revisionism, that is the precedence for another runaway convention.

                Re: Mark America, Rebuilding America With Actual Conservatism

                I take that to mean “conservatism” before the ratification of the US Constitution. Explains why you don’t care about putting the US Constitution in peril.

                Here is a quote that brilliantly sums up what your side is incapable of understanding.

                “Machiavel, discoursing on these matters, finds virtue to be so essentially necessary to the establishment and preservation of liberty, that he thinks it impossible for a corrupted people to set up a good government, or for a tyranny to be introduced if they be virtuous; and makes this conclusion, ‘That where the matter (that is, the body of the people) is not corrupted, tumults and disorders do not hurt; and where it is corrupted, good laws do no good:’ which being confirmed by reason and experience, I think no wise man has ever contradicted him.” ~Algernon Sydney, Discourses Concerning Government

                Hmmmm, no wise man has ever contradicted… which is precisely what you and Levin are doing by claiming an Article V Convention is the only solution. That is a false dilemma and why you deny the State’s natural right of nullification.

              • http://www.markamerica.com/ Mark America

                First, I’d ask you to refrain from placing words in my mouth. I don’t believe other options do not exist. I simply don’t see them as workable at this time. As you yourself have stated, we need only convince Americans in sufficient numbers to demand the application of the existing constitution. What are the chances? Also, as to sources: You have dismissed the constitution as a valid source? I apologize for having mistaken idiocy for hubris. Mea culpa.

              • https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/ The Blue Tail Gadfly

                And I apologize for ever mistaking you for a reasonable man.

                Don’t worry, I have done what I came here to do. There is no need for me to continue arguing with someone who refuses to reason well and is obtuse.

                Enjoy your alternative reality while you can, you will be in for a rude awakening if you ever get what you want.

                ~BTG

                “The greatest guilt of today is that of people who accept collectivism by moral default; the people who seek protection from the necessity of taking a stand, by refusing to admit to themselves the nature of that which they are accepting; the people who support plans specifically designed to achieve serfdom, but hide behind the empty assertion that they are lovers of freedom, with no concrete meaning attached to the word; the people who believe that the content of ideas need not be examined, that principles need not be defined, and that facts can be eliminated by keeping one’s eyes shut. They expect, when they find themselves in a world of bloody ruins and concentration camps, to escape moral responsibility by wailing: “But I didn’t mean this!”” ~Ayn Rand

      • https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/ The Blue Tail Gadfly

        Hi Mark,

        I wanted to ask this question by itself.

        Would you mind explaining all those things that are so wrong with the Constitution that it requires an Article V Convention to fix?

        Thanks,

        ~BTG

        • http://www.markamerica.com/ Mark America

          I would be glad to do so. First, let’s ditch the 17th amendment as part of the reason we’re in this state. Second, let us reduce the executive wiggle-room always excused under the claim of emergency/necessity. If you start with merely these things, you can see giant holes in the framers’ restraints on the growth of government.

          • https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/ The Blue Tail Gadfly

            Re: “If you start with merely these things, you can see giant holes in the framers’ restraints on the growth of government.”

            The Framers had nothing to do with the 17th Amendment or the misinterpretations so I don’t know how you can say they were giant holes in their restraints. Are you saying by allowing an amendment process they left holes?

            If you are truly interested in reigning in Executive abuses of power, then you shouldn’t support Mark Levin’s proposed Balanced Budget Amendment which gives the President control of the purse strings and judicial power over taxing and spending to the federal courts. To do so would be counter-productive.

            The 16th Amendment allowed Congress to tax beyond their enumerated powers and the Balanced Budget Amendment will allow them to constitutionally spend beyond their enumerated powers.

            If you ever wondered how the States and People fell for those Trojan Horse Amendments, wonder no more, we are seeing it now.

            FWIW, you don’t call a Con Con just to repeal a couple of Amendments. The repeal of the 18th Amendment tells us that.

  • Sarahistheone

    Your wife is in my prayers.

    • http://www.markamerica.com/ Mark America

      Thank you!

  • Jennie Valtinson

    Thoughts and best wishes go out to your wife and the rest of the family, Mark.

    I am so disheartened by the way our present leaders are taking us in a bad direction. Unless things take a huge turn in a different direction, we are done.

    • http://www.markamerica.com/ Mark America

      Thank you Jennie! It never ceases to amaze me how much garbage the American people will tolerate. To think that there are those who LIKE this situation is unfathomable to me.

  • the unit

    I’m for trying anything that will save the republic and the flag for which it stands, hopefully before somebody pulls the trigger.
    But after this discussion started several months ago, I tried to find out what I could as to how it works. Seems I read somewhere that every state has at sometime applied for an Article V Convention, except Hawaii and maybe one more (I haven’t rechecked that). If that is the case though, why hasn’t there been one. Do the applications from all have to agree as to the purpose of the calling? Expiration date?
    I don’t remember exactly where I was reading, probably Wiki, so who knows?
    And after enough states make application and congress is supposed to call for the convention, who is to make them? Don’t they sort of pick and choose now what to follow constitutionally and to let the executive pick and choose laws to enforce as well?
    I don’t want to discourage anyone from a path they want to follow. I’m purely disgusted.

    • JohnInFlorida

      Do the applications from all have to agree as to the purpose of the calling?

      Yes … I believe it was the call for a Balanced Budget Amendment that’s come closest but never reached the threshold of 2/3 of the states calling for THE SAME purpose.

      A better explanation …
      http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/long-respectful-rebuttal-convention-states-criticisms/

      • the unit

        A Dear John…in Florida letter. I read your link. I also have my Liberty Lobby booklet on Constitution and “A Handbook for Jurors.” Copy 1995, original 1985. Also I be in Northwest Florida where we salute Bible Thumpers @ redlight intersections.(Of course many ignore :) )
        I ask you though in the Constitution, Article V where it says states calling for conventions must call for same thought, ideas, and words? Who decided that? Huh?
        Maybe nullification has already happened… Huh?

        • JohnInFlorida

          Unlike Obama, I’m no Constitutional scholar and never claimed to be one. I can only go by what I read and what people tell me. I decide whether or not they are “kooks” or reasonably knowledgable people in light of what else they have said, then take what they say and consider whether or not what they say makes sense to me. I truly believe that many people with degrees out the wazoo are totally lacking in common sense and therefore to be taken with a grain of salt. Others may be lacking in “degrees” but have copious stores of common sense. All I can do is the best I can based on what I’ve learned and that’s what I’m trying to do here.

          One blurb which makes sense to me:

          “If it were established that applications on different topics are considered jointly when determining if the two-thirds threshold has been reached, states would almost certainly rescind their outstanding applications to prevent a general constitutional convention. Some states have already acted based on fears of a general convention. For example, in 1999 the Idaho legislature adopted a resolution rescinding all of its outstanding applications for a constitutional convention. S.C.R. 129, 1999 Leg. (Idaho 1999). Georgia passed a similar resolution in 2004. H.R. 1343, Gen. Assemb. 2004 (Ga. 2004). Both resolutions were motivated by a fear that a convention could exceed its scope and propose sweeping changes to the Constitution.”

          Another source …

          click here

          … takes you to a pdf published by the Goldwater Institute

          Up to you what you believe about or do with the information.

          • the unit

            John in Fl. haven’t read the pdf yet and you know I not arguing against you and MA. Was just saying in reading Article V , who makes these rules, like nana, nana , nan, er, oh, yeah, we take back our application. OK, will read GW Institute tomorrow. Thanks.

            • JohnInFlorida

              I understood what you were saying, and no, I wasn’t thinking that you were arguing.
              Take care,
              John

            • http://www.markamerica.com/ Mark America

              Unit, there is no doubt in my mind that the federal folks would throw up every roadblock they thought they could reasonably erect.

  • JohnInFlorida

    Mark,
    Prayers for you and your family. While there probably is no other reason for your inactivity that is worse than the reality you and your wife have been experiencing, I’m relieved that you didn’t just throw in the towel and say that the political situation is hopeless.

    Also, I’m glad to see you taking on and opposing what “The Blue Tail Gadfly” is spouting as you have done a much better job of refuting it than I could have. I believe the Nullification boys are on a track that will eventually fail, nevertheless ANY opposition to the state is better than them doing nothing.

    Having said that, I believe that Article V is the last best chance to get us out of this mess and that’s where I’ve put down roots.
    I urge anyone reading this who truly cares to go to:
    http://www.conventionofstates.com/volunteer-positions/
    and join us to help make this project a success. There’s a real need for additional committed people in ALL states to help lead this movement. If you cannot commit to filling a leadership position @ COS Project, there is a huge need for volunteers to sign up with their local District Captain and bring pressure to bear on their local state senators and representatives.

    Time truly is running out, we MUST awaken the “the masses”, the “low-information voter” and those good, all-American people who are just too darn busy trying to make a living and provide for their families to take the time to see where we are headed.

    Need more convincing?

    Sincerely,
    JohnInFlorida
    FL18 District Captain, Convention of States Project
    – – – – – – – – – –
    Enforce the 10th, repeal the 17th, support the Convention of States and may God bless the United States of America.

    • https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/ The Blue Tail Gadfly

      Someone mention my name?

      Great! Someone from the Convention of the States.

      Would you mind explaining your Communication Director, Jordon Sillar’s post where wrote,

      “… I think the majority of Americans are too lazy to elect honest politicians. But I think some men and women could be found who are morally and intellectually capable of re-writing the Constitution…”

      Then there is Michael Farris (director of Convention of the States) also saying, ““…sometimes what you need is not a change of personnel, you need a change of structure. The Founders understood the importance of structure…”

      Could you also explain what he is talking about? Sounds like he is wanting to fundamentally alter our form of govt, Given the fact that he pushes the Trojan Horse Balanced Budget Amendment and is the primary author of the deceitful Parental Rights Amendment, it is extremely probable to conclude that Michael Farris is no fan of the Constitution.

      http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2013/12/18/the-convention-of-states-scam-the-war-over-the-constitution-and-how-the-states-sold-the-reserved-powers-to-the-feds/

      Thanks,

      ~BTG

      “Toward the preservation of your government and the permanency of your
      present happy state, it is requisite not only that you steadily
      discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but
      also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its
      principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be
      to effect in the forms of the Constitution alterations which will impair
      the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what can not be
      directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited
      remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true
      character of governments as of other human institutions…” ~George Washington, Farewell Address

      • JohnInFlorida

        Nope, sorry but I only speak for myself … if you want answers to those questions, you’ll have to talk to Jordan and/or Michael.

        But would a repeal of the 17th be a repudiation of the framers? Methinks not.

        Federal debt beyond the ability to EVER be repaid would cause them to gasp in disbelief.

        The concept of “citizen legislators” was one that was easily understood in the times of the framers while, IMO, legislators ensconced in their seats for decades on end would totally blow their minds. So the idea of term limits on legislators being acceptable to the framers doesn’t seem so farfetched to me.

        Etc, etc, etc … ad infinitum …

        I’m just a small frog in a big pond, trying to influence my little corner of Florida. So I’ll just continue trying to convince other small frogs to hop in the right direction.

        Take care,
        John

        • https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/ The Blue Tail Gadfly

          Re: “Nope, sorry but I only speak for myself”

          You signed your previous post as, JohnInFlorida
          FL18 District Captain, Convention of States Project.

          Why do you belong to Michael Farris’ organization then if you only speak for yourself?

          Do you not take responsibility for the organization that you joined and are a District Captain of?

          Your lackadaisical attitude concerning the alarming statements of your President and Communications Officer of the Convention of the States Project is telling.

          BTW, I am not arguing against repealing of bad amendments like the 16th and 17th, but that doesn’t require a Convention of the States to do. Research the 18th Amendment.

          An Article V Convention does nothing to address the real problem, it serves as a diversion and scapegoat which only divides republicans further. We are the problem, not the Constitution. Try as you might, either way it will only end in failure.

          “To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.” ~James Madison

          • JohnInFlorida

            Back in the days of my youth, your baiting me might have elicited a response I’d have regretted upon reflection, but no more as age and experience are wonderful moderators of emotions. I belong to COS because I believe in what we are trying to accomplish and hope that I can contribute in some small way to achieving our goals. I do not take responsibility for the utterances of ANYONE but myself and while I don’t speak for others, I do speak TO others and hope that the things I say influence them in some small way towards the goal of a free and prosperous people who control our government, a government which is administered by people who serve their bosses, the people of this country.

            Pollyanna-ish? Perhaps … “Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, Or what’s a heaven for?”

            As I said in an earlier post, it’s “Up to you what you believe about or do with the information.”

            • https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/ The Blue Tail Gadfly

              Hi JohninFlorida

              Re: “I belong to COS because I believe in what we are trying to accomplish and hope that I can contribute in some small way to achieving our goals.”

              Since Michael Farris was speaking on behalf of COS, I can rightfully conclude that you believe in his official statement:

              “…sometimes what you need is not a change of personnel, you need a change of structure. The Founders understood the importance of structure…”

              Ahhh, leave the crooks in place and just change the structure. That will work!

              The question I have now is, change the structure to what?

              • JohnInFlorida

                Believe what you like, I’ll not be able to change your mind and won’t waste any more time trying … have a wonderful week.

              • http://www.markamerica.com/ Mark America

                Let’s refrain from attacking people on the basis of the utterances of persons not involved in this conversation, shall we?

              • https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/ The Blue Tail Gadfly

                Persons not involved in this conversation?

                Excuse me, but JohninFlorida posted links to Michael Farris’ website, ‘Convention of the States Project’. JohninFlorida is a District Captain for the Convention of the States Project so Michael Farris is very much a part of the conversation here.

                But don’t let those facts get in your way.

              • http://www.markamerica.com/ Mark America

                I don’t know Michael Farris, and to my knowledge, he doesn’t frequent this site. He’s not a party to this conversation, in any event. Holding JohninFlorida responsible for whatever Mr. Farris may have said is absurd.

          • http://www.markamerica.com/ Mark America

            Quite right: It doesn’t require an amendment of the states to repeal the 16th, 17th, or anything else. That said, it is an equivalent procedure to the Congress so doing, and I believe it’s a good deal more likely to happen via an amending convention comprised of delegates from the states.

            Yes, yes, we all know that the virtue of the people is a significant issue here. That applies as much to a convention of the states as any other, and again, is filled with no greater possible trouble than the other method. Sorry, but you’re losing yourself in this. What is to prohibit Congress, in both houses, deciding to put forward a series of amendments for ratification that would ultimately change the structure of our government, or strip citizens of rights now guaranteed? NOTHING, but their fear of us. What do you think would prevent states from demolishing the existing constitution to bring in a completely new form of government? NOTHING, but their fear of us. Who is more apt to be fearful of us? Federal legislators who already ignore the American people in a distant capital, or state legislators who are somewhat more reluctant to ignore their constituents in capitals decidedly more local to the people?

            Everything you fear about a convention of the states is every bit as possible from the federal legislature in every session, the significant difference being that the federal legislators would be cut out of the deliberations. The same ratification process is required, so I do not understand your trepidation.

            • https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/ The Blue Tail Gadfly

              What you write is simply incorrect, if you would bother to research the subject instead of being a blind follower of Mark Levin, you would know that.

              • http://www.markamerica.com/ Mark America

                I’m not a blind follower of Mark Levin. You seem to believe that somehow, the words of Article V mean something other than what they plainly state. You repeatedly assert in some fashion that I am “simply incorrect,” yet you offer no explanation.

  • the unit

    JohninFlorida, thanks for Goldwater Institute link. I’ve read 9 pages and then the conclusion. That is enough for my simpleton question of who makes the rules to carry out the intent that seemed so simply worded in Article V. I was reminded of the words a few years ago by a friend, “there’s no question that hasn’t been asked before nor any problem that hasn’t been faced by someone before.” Nice that today we have sources readily available. In fact I remembered his words not long ago when I was wondering how to fix a broken door handle on my truck. Behold I searched and found a video that showed me exactly how to do it. To avail myself of the experience and knowledge attained by others probably saved me from tearing up my door trying to fix it.
    So the tools of experience and knowledge to maybe get America back on track are there.
    But It may be a new experience in our country to do it in the face of a dictator. However that problem has a history of experience and knowledge too.
    Update an hour later. Read BT Gadfly’s link too now. So thanks to you too.
    We’ve got a big problem.
    I think all I’ve read leans for sure toward saving the republic.
    I’ll have to leave it to you younger folk to figure it out or fight it out. I too old and probably don’t have the lifetime to see the resolution.
    Read a news article that old folks mind works slow because they know so much like a full hard drive (or whatever it is that slows a computer). That’s probably as good a reason as any to leave it up to you all. :)