By Ben Swann
Many are starting to question the extremely hard push from many so-called self-proclaimed conservative talk show hosts regarding Mark Levin’s push for a Constitutional Convention. To many of us, it seems that the only time these talk show hosts (Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.) join together in this manner is when there is a time to bring Americans into another unconstitutional war or when it’s time to persuade Americans that they should support another self-proclaimed “conservative” candidate that believes that the U.S. Constitution is a living document that can be altered without regard to the laws of the Constitution.
So why is it that so many are being called on by self-proclaimed conservative leaders to promote a Con Con (also known as an Article 5 Constitutional Convention)? As cruel as they are, the leaders are often heard pulling on the heart strings of Americans by claiming that that this is a way to immediately put an end to things such as abortion, American flag burning, and an unbalanced federal budget. Mark Levin, leader of the push for a Con Con, pulls on the heart strings of Americans without warning them of the real dangers of a Constitutional Convention. He does this by telling Americans that the Constitution will only be reasonably amended because we can “trust” conservative Republicans to do what is right for us at an Article 5 Constitutional Convention.
Read the rest here.
FYI, it's posted on Ben Swann's site, but the article is by Evan Mulch
ReplyDeleteWhy do people even listen to these bozos?
ReplyDeleteThis idea perpetuates the notion that a Constitution is somehow a meaningful check on those who would achieve power under a Constitution.
ReplyDeleteA written constitution is a most clever device to protect the state and its actors from the people, and not the other way around as the faithful commonly believe:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-written-constitution-protecting-state.html
The last meeting of this nature they had resulted in the creation of the Constitution, which was completely unexpected as the intention of the convention was to amend or alter the Articles of Confederation. What came out was a whole new document. There is no guarantee that holding another Con-Con will not take away on paper those freedom the government has already taken away or severely infringed on practically. Sure, you can keep and bear arms (2A), but you cannot conceal carry without government permission (permit). The 4A is gone as we've seen from what the NSA has been doing for years. The issue of states' rights (10A) was practically settled by the War Between the States and, as Thomas J DiLorenzo writes, the final nail in the coffin of federalism in America was driven in with the passage of the Income Tax (16A). The passage of 17A, which called for the popular election of senators instead of being appointed by state legislatures, was icing on the cake. I could cite more examples, but I'm sure we've all read them on this site and others.
ReplyDeleteThe New American, a magazine affiliated with the John Birch society, has covered the con of a Con-Con before and I'd recommend folks refer to their work on the matter to better understand the extreme dangers to their liberties that a Con-Con presents.
From the radio talk show hosts to high school study guides and probably well into the grade schools and such there is this clear theme of re-writing the constitution. This sort of alignment is probably not an accident. More like the usual way certain people with wealth and influence work to get what they want.
ReplyDeleteFrom the radio talk show hosts to high school study guides and probably well into the grade schools and such there is this clear theme of re-writing the constitution. This sort of alignment is probably not an accident. More like the usual way certain people with wealth and influence work to get what they want.
ReplyDeleteI trust conservatives (both neocon and paleocon) as much as I trust cops and liberals. As we have seen in the past, statism can be put into the constitution. Give me NAP over the constitution any day.
ReplyDeleteIf you want an amendment that will improve this country, try this. The government will discriminate neither for nor against any person based on race, creed, color, gender, or any other grouping, but will treat each person individually. No statistics or records of these groupings will be collected or recorded by the Fed Gov. EVER!
ReplyDelete