Levin: Biggest News Yesterday Was Not Obamacare … and 'This Is Going to Be an Earthquake'

[INVAR]

Ridiculous rationale.

You are advocating us NOT to execute one of the Constitution's fundamental provisions for keeping this country on the path it was intended.

Yes, the Constitution is the solution.  You must be thinking we live in some land that does not have that document to try to prevent citizens of this country from honoring it and using what the Founders made available to us to use.

And your condemnation of others in using that document as it was intended to be used helps nothing.  Seems you would never approved of any Amendments with the reasoning you invoke.

AGAIN, as your previous three replies to this thread prove, you have a MASSIVE, MASSIVE reading comprehension problem about what members here have clearly written and stated.

You have twisted your replies into the theater of the absurd because none of us have even hinted at what you insist we think.

Either that, or you are drunk or you are simply knee jerking to be a contrarian for the sake of demonstrating you can be a male appendage.

[Emjay]

Mark Levin has a great mind, but the voice of an insufferable shrew.

That is why I could never listen to him.  Plus, he possesses zero warmth and is as rude to people who agree with him as people who oppose him.

That's why he has to have dogs.  They don't judge.

[Doug Loss]

AGAIN, as your previous three replies to this thread prove, you have a MASSIVE, MASSIVE reading comprehension problem about what members here have clearly written and stated.

You have twisted your replies into the theater of the absurd because none of us have even hinted at what you insist we think.

Either that, or you are drunk or you are simply knee jerking to be a contrarian for the sake of demonstrating you can be a male appendage.

@INVAR, you're getting very close to being reported to the moderators.  I no longer will engage you on this topic, but I would advise you to be a bit more polite in your responses.

[INVAR]

@INVAR, you're getting very close to being reported to the moderators.  I no longer will engage you on this topic, but I would advise you to be a bit more polite in your responses.

"Polite"????  I've been accused of being loony, a stiff and been told to crawl back into the swamp I came from among other things on this thread alone - being instructed by the same to show more 'humility'.

Apparently 'snowflake' is a term that is not limited to the Radical Left alone.

Report me then if you think it bolsters your argument and makes you feel magnanimous.

[Doug Loss]

"Polite"????  I've been accused of being loony, a stiff and been told to crawl back into the swamp I came from among other things on this thread alone - being instructed by the same to show more 'humility'.

Apparently 'snowflake' is a term that is not limited to the Radical Left alone.

Report me then if you think it bolsters your argument and makes you feel magnanimous.

You just don't get it, do you?  You are rude, insulting, and generally act holier-than-thou.  I try to be civil to you and it just rolls right off.  If you want it that way, fine, that's the way it'll be.

[Oceander]

How would a CC give them that opportunity @Oceander ?

Carte Blanche to put in all the little "goodies" the Founders forgot about, like the right to free guaranteed housing. 

[Smokin Joe]

You have noticed the difference in the time scales we're talking about, I hope.  You talk about 50-60 years ago, I talk about perhaps 25 years ago.  50-60 years ago, no one tried to rein in the federal government because it wasn't so onerously controlling society as much as it is now.  You state, "It will take time to fix and that may not happen in our lifetimes, if ever."  That may be true, but it isn't any reason whatsoever to not try to start the fix now, when the conditions are as good as they've been in a while and are unlikely to get better.  And "if ever?"  If you believe there's little or no chance of regaining our liberty, then what's the point of even debating the issue?  We believe we have the chance, and are willing and able to fight for it.  Joe, I do appreciate your thoughts, but I just can't agree with your negativity.  We may fail, but at least we will have tried rather than given up.

You will have taken the short path looking for instantaneous gratification, not the one which builds for enduring success. There are those of us, called "Conservatives" who have been trying to fix the problem for a long time, who decried the "New Deal" and who go back (philosophically) much farther than that. People who have been harbingers of Federal Overreach at times when relatively few felt the bite or the sting, and those few ignored the warnings that eventually they too would feel it.

Even these words did not awaken the well distracted and prospering masses:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me

Because people said "I'm not a Socialist" (and the Socialists were the ones pushing for this, anyway). Or "Oh, that was there. That could never happen here."

Or "Communism is dead". and ignored the threat, that was indicated in principle, even to the extent that the 70s were marked by "Don't get involved!", the whole time subversion of our Constitution was a rollicking business.

I'm sorry to say this, but you will fail beyond your wildest dreams because you grossly overestimate the people out there who really want a return to the principles of a document and government system they have not known in their lifetimes. The hordes who aren't yet directly dependent are feeding at the trough, be it Federal, be it Federally funded State Projects, be it a completely unearned check in the mailbox and State administered Federally funded benefits never paid for by the sweat of their brow.

I would love to be wrong, and if I am I will eat crow and dine on the bird gracefully, but as I have indicated, the process will be hijacked.

I have indicated who will hijack the process (the GOPe, with 'bipartisan' help), how they will hijack the process (infiltration as delegates), and why (to retain the status quo, which is beneficial to them at Federal and State levels--and I have indicated why that is the case), and why they will have the support of the GOP and much of the electorate, who directly or indirectly perceive they benefit from the status quo).

Proceed if you must, but I would be remiss if I did not point out that peril.

No amount of wishful thinking or personal anger at the way the system is perverted will change that fact unless it is far more widespread than the people elected to office by their respective districts indicate by their very presence in the system, which takes support from the Donors, the Party, the local kingmakers, and ultimately the voters.

The electorate is satisfied enough with the status quo that they continue to support it by continuing to support the candidates who vote for it or fail to vote against it, and have spurned far more principled persons for ones who are long on promises and promise "winning" despite obviously questionable veracity and adherence to any principles.   

When they are done, the very system you seek to prevent, the very things which are unconstitutional now which you want stopped will no longer be unconstitutional, because the Amendments proffered and eventually ratified will make that Federal overreach not just Constitutionally authorized, but Constitutionally mandated.

That is the peril of moving too soon. Conservatives are beginning to use the internet and social media to the extent the Statists have, but that is just getting going, we are just recognizing the power of that media to get ideas out there, to fight the lies, as long as we do not permit ourselves to be shouted down.

You speak of urgency for an Article V convention, as if the climate was best, but the problems of an over reaching Federal Government are nearly 200 years old, and while those have advanced in stages, notably in the 1860s, the 1910s, in the 1930s, the 1960s and 70s, and especially the Clinton and Obama years, at no time was this considered so urgent that an Article V Convention was called before.

[EC]

The presence of the option of an Article V convention is yet another example, should one be needed, that the founders not only had a deep understanding of people, but a deep understanding of the attractions and corruptions of power. Its there because they knew full well it would be needed some day.

Kicking the can down the road isn't a solution. May as well do it now, while the right hold enough state legislatures to at the least keep out most of the nanny additions proposed.

[Smokin Joe]

The presence of the option of an Article V convention is yet another example, should one be needed, that the founders not only had a deep understanding of people, but a deep understanding of the attractions and corruptions of power. Its there because they knew full well it would be needed some day.

Kicking the can down the road isn't a solution. May as well do it now, while the right hold enough state legislatures to at the least keep out most of the nanny additions proposed.

Go for it. But the right doesn't hold those legislatures, the Republicans do.

[Doug Loss]

The presence of the option of an Article V convention is yet another example, should one be needed, that the founders not only had a deep understanding of people, but a deep understanding of the attractions and corruptions of power. Its there because they knew full well it would be needed some day.

Kicking the can down the road isn't a solution. May as well do it now, while the right hold enough state legislatures to at the least keep out most of the nanny additions proposed.

Exactly right.  And those who believe all is lost, that nothing can save us, will never agree to it.  Those of us who believe that our Constitution and our freedoms are worth fighting for will do so whether they agree or not.  So this discussion in toto is pretty much just a distraction from the great work that we must do.  I'm done with the back and forth here; there's real work to be done.  And if and when we do rein in the out-of-control feral government, we'll do it for all the people, not just those who agree with us.  You're welcome, everyone.

[LateForLunch]

Exactly right.  And those who believe all is lost, that nothing can save us, will never agree to it.  Those of us who believe that our Constitution and our freedoms are worth fighting for will do so whether they agree or not.  So this discussion in toto is pretty much just a distraction from the great work that we must do.  I'm done with the back and forth here; there's real work to be done.  And if and when we do rein in the out-of-control feral government, we'll do it for all the people, not just those who agree with us.  You're welcome, everyone.

Great post, Doug! I notice that this is another example of how many times there are people who are ready to offer lots of criticism, lots of advice, but no help. That attitude doesn't really do anything significant to better the lots of people and it doesn't help better the plight of nations.

BTW, I note that you ended with "You're welcome, everyone ", which I took as an invitation for universal participation, not as a gratuitous reply to an unexpressed, "Thank you".

[IsailedawayfromFR]

You just don't get it, do you?  You are rude, insulting, and generally act holier-than-thou.  I try to be civil to you and it just rolls right off.  If you want it that way, fine, that's the way it'll be.

A classic definition of a bully, isn't he?

[Smokin Joe]

Great post, Doug! I notice that this is another example of how many times there are people who are ready to offer lots of criticism, lots of advice, but no help. That attitude doesn't really do anything significant to better the lots of people and it doesn't help better the plight of nations.

BTW, I note that you ended with "You're welcome, everyone ", which I took as an invitation for universal participation, not as a gratuitous reply to an unexpressed, "Thank you".

I pointed obvious and very real pitfalls, problems which will arise, and how and why this Convention, should it come to pass, WILL be hijacked by the very people it hopes to thwart. I pointed out what needs to be done first if you are going to avoid that, and even then, there are no guarantees.

You may not consider that helpful, any more than a "bridge out" sign on the highway, or a lockout tag on a piece of faulty equipment, but there it is. Y'all have your ears laid back and the bit in your teeth.

[LateForLunch]

I agree. Those paradoxes apply.

Every 'boom' brings the inevitable 'bust'. During that contraction, many of the best hands get sidelined by those more artful at playing politics to retain their position (the cacogenic phase). Eventually, those succumb to their own abilities or lack thereof, depending on what is considered, and the few who really are good at both rise in the food chain.

Humans have it relatively easy in the 'first' world, and instead of gathering sticks to cook over and water, are worried about far more esoteric woes such as fashion and pop 'culture'. The latter has gone overboard in an effort to retain 'freshness' and 'relevance' and that leads to the cultural decay in so many different aspects.

Would the Creator who put Adam and Eve in the Garden desire that we create this stressful and destructive 'utopia' for ourselves?  Perhaps, but only if we did not listen, and as an object lesson, not His greatest desire for humankind. It seems the less we toil for the basics, the farther we stray from Him and His plan for us all.

Well, you speak wisdom. But I am afraid that the problem is worse than that.

See, since the industrial revolution and the invention of Television and its adjunct mass media, two things have changed forever in our world.

First, the average life in first tier economies is getting much longer and much easier (except of course in third and second tier economies). Technology and free market capital investment has resulted in an elevation of the standard of living for virtually everyone (especially the lowest tier of the economic ladder in free societies - tyrannical societies are different - the poor tend to stay that way in tyrannies). This is because competition and innovation have generated better, cheaper products and commodities over the last century and a quarter since the Industrial Revolution.

The trend has been up, UP UP!!! over that time span. So the cacogenic population has also gone up UP! UP!!! Easier living has bred a vast population of people who are very tenuously attached to rationalism or pragmatism. A large and growing percentage of the population no longer even has to be marginally competent or rational in their working lives - they can basically F-off for their entire lives and still become quite wealthy (union workers, entrepreneurs, pop-stars, politicians, professors etc) even though they really don't fit into the tradition of meritocracy in the pure sense. They are for all intents and purposes parasites and proud of it.

The other way that things have changed permanently is that the mass media now exists as a Fourth Estate of power - administrating its influence through what R Buckminster Fuller called Soft Warfare. This is best typified in the Viet Nam War, as a vastly inferior military force (N.Viet Nam + Communist China) was able to defeat the United States and her allies in the Southest Asian Theater simply through the use of Soft Warfare to wield political power to gain a victory that they could never have attained militarily.

The mechanisms of soft warfare have been refined, modified and adapted to day-to-day political affairs, enabling not just Communists but quite literally every despotic, immoral, savage, idiotic, monstrous, evil specimen of vermin who can master the elements of the game, to obtain and hold political power -even (as evidenced by the election and reelection of the Eightball Obama) the most powerful office in the world (POTUS).

So our current plight is not so much an up/down cycle, but is now approaching something far closer to the Vedantist Kali Yuga, the total and utter destruction of the world by the ascent of the inferior demonic populations who will overwhelm the good people by their sheer numbers.

I do not claim to have a solution, but the first step to solving any problem is to first accurately define the fundamental problem(s). In a nutshell, the central, chronic, mounting problem for our species is too many inferior members with too much (and increasing)power. Maybe the best thing that could happen to us would be to have the planet's reset button pushed by an asteroid or comet core impact so that life would again become very difficult and natural selection (a fixture of Natural Law) would once again dominate over the proclivities of the human race to breed cacogenic sub-species which do not further the best interests of Humanity, but rather, impede them.

I am not a big fan of genocide or eugenics because they won't work. One cannot achieve a moral result by applying immoral methodology. But SOMETHING needs to change. The Prosperity Paradox is overburdening the gene pool with inferior breeding stock and the Leadership Paradox is often elevating those in our race who should rightly be locked up in prisons/mental facilities or euthanized. 

I would not be the least bit surprised if we met a superior extraterrestrial species and asked them how they overcame their social/cultural turmoil to attain such heights, that they respond, "Easy. We nearly went extinct a few times, which made us a much better species overall and weeded out the cacogenic strains".

[txradioguy]

Carte Blanche to put in all the little "goodies" the Founders forgot about, like the right to free guaranteed housing.

That would take approval by 2/3'rds of the states.  That alone helps keep pork out of a CC.

That kind of strict approval process is also why the Bill of Rights has 10 and not 12 amendments.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

That would take approval by 2/3'rds of the states.  That alone helps keep pork out of a CC.

That kind of strict approval process is also why the Bill of Rights has 10 and not 12 amendments.

I agree.

Some on this thread forget it takes 2/3 of the state legislators to even call a convention.  If the convention is 'hijacked', it means these same state legislators will do a 180 and undermine what they called for. 

And I really do not see 3/4 of the states approving an expansion of federal powers either.

Seems Chicken Little is alive and well.

I just do not see that happening the way naysayers believe.

[txradioguy]

I agree.

Some on this thread forget it takes 2/3 of the state legislators to even call a convention.  If the convention is 'hijacked', it means these same state legislators will do a 180 and undermine what they called for. 

And I really do not see 3/4 of the states approving an expansion of federal powers either.

Seems Chicken Little is alive and well.

I just do not see that happening the way naysayers believe.

Agree 100%

[INVAR]

I pointed obvious and very real pitfalls, problems which will arise, and how and why this Convention, should it come to pass, WILL be hijacked by the very people it hopes to thwart. I pointed out what needs to be done first if you are going to avoid that, and even then, there are no guarantees.

You may not consider that helpful, any more than a "bridge out" sign on the highway, or a lockout tag on a piece of faulty equipment, but there it is. Y'all have your ears laid back and the bit in your teeth.

Let them do their thing and pretend they have fixed the root of the problem.

They will have to do it without support of Christian Conservatives whom they have demonstrated they are not interested in persuading to their cause.

[Smokin Joe]

I agree.

Some on this thread forget it takes 2/3 of the state legislators to even call a convention.  If the convention is 'hijacked', it means these same state legislators will do a 180 and undermine what they called for. 

And I really do not see 3/4 of the states approving an expansion of federal powers either.

Seems Chicken Little is alive and well.

I just do not see that happening the way naysayers believe.

At present, every State gets money from the Federal Government for programs administered by the State. From Highway construction to Medicaid, those funds provide a wellspring of revenue which the State governments do not have to directly raise at the State level, and only have to vote to divvy up in a way that will keep their home districts happy enough to get them reelected. Changing that process and returning power to the States will mean, necessarily, that the States will have to raise their own revenue, not just collect from the Federal trough. Tax measures will cause hard feelings back home, and may well imperil their jobs if the current (deficit at the Federal level) amounts are to be maintained. In short, the constituents will resent the crap out of those State Legislators who want everyone to pay their way.
The status quo insulates those State legislators from that collection of revenue, and is desirable from the aspect of keeping their jobs. They are free to gripe about how the Federal Government is overbearing, just as the Representatives in Congress were free to revile Obamacare, but when push came to shove and they had a chance to repeal it, they failed.

I fully expect the same phenomenon to occur, perhaps even passing Amendments which legitimize the processes which make it easier to keep their jobs at the state level by increasing Federal Power. Democrats are all for Federal Statism, and with a greater than 50% abdication of the TEA party principles which put many Congressmen in office (gee, they lied), I'd expect similar behaviour from GOP delegates who say one thing and then subvert the process. Add the Dems and the turncoat GOP together, and that could well be trouble.

If we haven't realized that "Republican" and "Conservative" are not interchangeable terms yet, it is time to take another hard look at the situation. Most Conservatives are Republicans, but it would be fallacious to say most Republicans are Conservative. The votes on the ACA bills and the bills themselves prove this.

This is why I caution to examine local and state level operations in the GOP and determine who is really conservative and wants to return to the Constitution (and has been that way) and who is not. I believe the Federal Congress is a reflection of what attitudes are present in the Party hierarchy at the State and even local levels, and that makes the Federal people relevant indicators of what philosophies and principles exist at the State level (where they were nominated to candidacy for those offices), which will affect the selection of delegates and the outcome of any CC.

Any expansion of Federal Powers will not seem like one, it will only put on paper what has been done in practice and legitimize it. It is the other, easier, way to make our government "Constitutional"--change the Constitution to conform to what is done, not change the government to conform to the Constitution--which is what really needs to be done, but is a lot harder than changing a piece of paper.

Make any list of federal programs which you consider overreach and unConstitutional.
Now start removing those programs and actions from the list and either replace them with State Level programs or eliminate them. Tell me there won't be wailing and gnashing of teeth over that. The State Governments will want to keep their jobs, too. After all, for most of them that is as high as they will ever go up the political ladder.

[INVAR]

If the convention is 'hijacked', it means these same state legislators will do a 180 and undermine what they called for. 

Short-term memories seem to forget that after all the promises to undo Obama's agenda, and upon winning them the House, Senate and the Presidency - the Republicans have instead done all they can to protect and enshrine it.  A 180 away from what they campaigned on.

But go ahead and pretend that will not happen when Amending the Constitution itself is being attempted.

[Smokin Joe]

Short-term memories seem to forget that after all the promises to undo Obama's agenda, and upon winning them the House, Senate and the Presidency - the Republicans have instead done all they can to protect and enshrine it.  A 180 away from what they campaigned on.

But go ahead and pretend that will not happen when Amending the Constitution itself is being attempted.

The only thing we have learned from history is that people do not learn from history.

[Cripplecreek]

Short-term memories seem to forget that after all the promises to undo Obama's agenda, and upon winning them the House, Senate and the Presidency - the Republicans have instead done all they can to protect and enshrine it.  A 180 away from what they campaigned on.

But go ahead and pretend that will not happen when Amending the Constitution itself is being attempted.

When the 17th amendment was being debated issues like term limits and recall elections came up and were killed. The state legislatures didn't love the idea of losing their power to choose senators to the popular vote but the parties loved it. The parties shortsightedly defeated the very purpose of the 17th amendment in writing it at the same time they stripped the states of their constitutional right to representation.

Without the 17th amendment we would be looking at probably 80 republican senators on average for the past 20 years with the number rising in recent years. Thanks to those shortsighted idiots a century ago, states like mine (MI) get 2 democrat senators in perpetuity in a GOP held state.

[INVAR]

The state legislatures didn't love the idea of losing their power to choose senators to the popular vote but the parties loved it.

We are being told by Advocates that the parties will have absolutely no influence on what happens inside of, and what comes out of an Article V Convention.

They expect us to believe such imbecility, or they have lied to themselves and erroneously think that to be the case.  They are ignoring history to put blind faith in yet another avenue of salvation for the republic without even considering what made one possible in the first place.

Since they refuse to address the core reasons why they are even discussing the need to amend the Constitution, this entire exercise they want to undertake will be proven to be one of abject futility and since they are not interested in considering or answering our concerns - I will not support the effort.

I'll keep pointing out the core flaws that doom their undertaking.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

At present, every State gets money from the Federal Government for programs administered by the State. From Highway construction to Medicaid, those funds provide a wellspring of revenue which the State governments do not have to directly raise at the State level, and only have to vote to divvy up in a way that will keep their home districts happy enough to get them reelected. Changing that process and returning power to the States will mean, necessarily, that the States will have to raise their own revenue, not just collect from the Federal trough. Tax measures will cause hard feelings back home, and may well imperil their jobs if the current (deficit at the Federal level) amounts are to be maintained. In short, the constituents will resent the crap out of those State Legislators who want everyone to pay their way.
The status quo insulates those State legislators from that collection of revenue, and is desirable from the aspect of keeping their jobs. They are free to gripe about how the Federal Government is overbearing, just as the Representatives in Congress were free to revile Obamacare, but when push came to shove and they had a chance to repeal it, they failed.

I fully expect the same phenomenon to occur, perhaps even passing Amendments which legitimize the processes which make it easier to keep their jobs at the state level by increasing Federal Power. Democrats are all for Federal Statism, and with a greater than 50% abdication of the TEA party principles which put many Congressmen in office (gee, they lied), I'd expect similar behaviour from GOP delegates who say one thing and then subvert the process. Add the Dems and the turncoat GOP together, and that could well be trouble.

If we haven't realized that "Republican" and "Conservative" are not interchangeable terms yet, it is time to take another hard look at the situation. Most Conservatives are Republicans, but it would be fallacious to say most Republicans are Conservative. The votes on the ACA bills and the bills themselves prove this.

This is why I caution to examine local and state level operations in the GOP and determine who is really conservative and wants to return to the Constitution (and has been that way) and who is not. I believe the Federal Congress is a reflection of what attitudes are present in the Party hierarchy at the State and even local levels, and that makes the Federal people relevant indicators of what philosophies and principles exist at the State level (where they were nominated to candidacy for those offices), which will affect the selection of delegates and the outcome of any CC.

Any expansion of Federal Powers will not seem like one, it will only put on paper what has been done in practice and legitimize it. It is the other, easier, way to make our government "Constitutional"--change the Constitution to conform to what is done, not change the government to conform to the Constitution--which is what really needs to be done, but is a lot harder than changing a piece of paper.

Make any list of federal programs which you consider overreach and unConstitutional.
Now start removing those programs and actions from the list and either replace them with State Level programs or eliminate them. Tell me there won't be wailing and gnashing of teeth over that. The State Governments will want to keep their jobs, too. After all, for most of them that is as high as they will ever go up the political ladder.

It is my belief that the most serious problems evolve around the federal government representatives that are chosen, not the state reps.

The people are always best served by those who are closest to them. It is far easier to reach out to a state rep or Senator than it is a Congressional one.  Electing people to serve in DC insulates them remarkably from the people they supposedly serve, and hence form their own agenda with similar colleagues to preserve their jobs.  It is small wonder that the manipulation of their own self-serving goals achieves a 96% average retention of an elected representative to Congress, as an example.  Think state reps are that high?

Placing one's trust in a state representative instead of a federal one assists in returning power back to the people.  State reps cannot insulate themselves nearly as much from their citizens, which makes them more accountable.

You seem to suggest that all reps are the same, whether they are state or federal.  I believe this is not the case.

You may even have the opportunity to have a neighbor who is your state rep or state senator.  Easy to give him an earful and he will stay tuned into your needs.  What's the chance of having a neighbor that works in Congress?  He stays in DC most of the time.

I understand the federal money trough people feed from.  However,  a state official recognizes ceding power to the feds limits him on his own power, as he cannot guarantee by trusting DC that he will have that money trough always flowing.

And bureaucracy.  Bureaucrats in his own state are much more accountable to him that a bureaucrat in DC.  He has every incentive to fight to get authority to the state, whether it is for power or money.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I'll keep pointing out the core flaws that doom their undertaking.

Since you seem so good at pointing our flaws in the Amendment process, why not go all-in and advocate stripping away all the Constitutional Amendments passed to date, since you do not believe there can any good in doing any amendments at all?