FOXNews’ Sean Hannity hosted an hour-long special on Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendments project, spelled out in his new best-seller The Liberty Amendment: Restoring the American Republic, in which Levin explained his project and was then queried by a host of conservatives (many, of course, regular FOX contributors, and all pre-disposed to find at least some agreement with Levin’s ideas).
Among those in the studio audience were David Limbaugh, Terry Jeffrey (CNS), Niger Innis, Jedidiah Bila, Joel Pollack (Breitbart), Monica Crowley, Steve Bannon (Breitbart), Katie Pavlich (Townhall), Jenny Beth Martin (Tea Party Patriots), and then FOX stalwarts like Michele Malkin.
All in all, I thought there were several good questions raised — how do we overcome a campaign of status-quo liberal indoctrination practiced by public schools, the mainstream press, and Hollywood, in order to get enough people engaged in the project; how do we avoid having the left (and I’d add, the statist right) try to hijack the process, etc. — but the best question I thought came from Monica Crowley, who walked right up to the edge a crucial line of inquiry that wasn’t broached, but to my way of thinking is the most important question of all, as I’ll explain momentarily: specifically, what happens, Crowley wanted to know, if the movement can’t gain traction? To which Levin responded to the effect of, well, we at least need to try, because doing nothing isn’t an option.
You can watch the entire discussion here:
Now, one of the pitfalls of having been, as a conservative outcast whose willingness to challenge those on our side without a kind of rote collegial deference, bracketed from these kinds of national public conversations (to our intellectual detriment as a movement, I’d say; and I’m not alone among those writers whose iconoclastic positions, at least early on in the Obama tenure, were tacitly determined to be unhelpful, and their once influential status very carefully weakened by the networked pragmatists), is that I wasn’t invited to appear on the panel.
And as a result, the question that needed to be asked wasn’t asked. And that is this: what happens if, say, only 57% of the states ratify? Does that mean at that point, having used up what Levin believes is our final recourse to save the republic, we can then throw up our hands, console ourselves for having tried, and then resign ourselves to live as subjects to an inexorably more powerful centralized welfare state bent on taking away individual autonomy and diminishing the role of private property by way of punitive taxation and wealth redistribution?
And if not — and many of us have already reached the point where we’ve determined we will not live under capricious law whimsically applied, nor will we subject ourselves to the final ruling of one philosopher king interested in his “historical legacy” as written by the very liberal scholars who are at work providing the intellectual ground for the deconstruction of our Constitution — what then?
Levin consistently, both on his show and in his appearances, dodges this question — the justification being that we aren’t there yet, and because, from a practical business standpoint, he likely can’t speculate openly given his public position as a syndicated broadcaster.
But the rest of us have already thought this through, and the hypothetical is both a realistic one and one that deserves to be discussed: if we have already gone past the popular tipping point, what recourse do those of us who simply will not accept being part of a permanent bureaucratic welfare state have going forward?
It’s an unpleasant question to think about. And as much I admire Levin, and cite him here often as perhaps the most seminal figure (along with Sarah Palin) in the popularizing of the constitutionalist movement, his reluctance to even broach the point is a failure from the end game perspective.
Let’s put this in the most basic, straightforward terms we can: say the last-ditch constitutional attempt to save the Constitution is rejected by enough people that the Liberty Amendment movement is stunted, weakened, or even dies. Then what?
Levin notes time and again that he is against majoritarianism. Okay. But what about an uprising by the new minority — those who still adhere to and revere the Constitution as written and intended? Would such a thing be legitimate, to Levin’s way of thinking?
That is to say, by Levin’s own admission, his attempt by way of the framers to save the republic may be the last and best lawful and civil way to affect systemic change and reverse the course of institutionalized progressivism, driving it out of the structural foundation of the country, where it has burrowed itself and is eating away the architectural strength of the founders’ and framers’ brilliant check on tyranny like an infestation of ideological termites.
So what if that attempt fails?
What then? Levin may perhaps dismiss this as a hypothetical, but then his project itself is a hypothetical. So that doesn’t fly.
So I’d ask Levin — and would have directly, had I been invited to represent the more aggressive strain of Devil’s advocacy — at what point do we recognize that reversing course is truly not an option (let’s say, eg., comprehensive immigration reform passes, and the Democrats control the popular vote for a generation or two), and that the only way to re-secure constitutional protections is to assert them against the federal (and some state and local) governments?
This is not meant to be a controversial question. It is an academic one. Succinctly: Would Levin support a minority uprising whose advocates insisted upon their liberty and their natural rights — and as a result, rejected and found illegitimate the federal government and the federal courts, who have reframed those rights to empower a ruling elite in direct contradiction to the plain language of the Constitution?
Or do we just go back to bitching online about it?
Discuss.
What then?
Withdrawal.
It’s the most peaceful way of letting those who would make such a bed lie in it, while the rest of us go our way.
Not sure what else we can do, short of moving to Antarctica.
what then?
The people I’m talking to, Jeff are taking it as a give that some sort of armed rebellion is coming.
hypothetically speaking.
If under the hypothetical, 57% of the states urge to go forward with an amendment convention, falling short of the necessary 2/3s, what does that imply about the numbers of persons in the population as a whole (who may not all support an amendment convention for the purposes for which Levin would support it), and thus about the numbers who would presumably be inclined to resist the progressive project?
And what sort of contingent change has been effected on the opinions of people as the whole motion toward an amendment convention takes place? This shit is dynamic as all get out, in other words, so we’re going to require pinning down a heck of a lot of underlying assumptions, it seems to me.
The very project, and the push for the project, will effect changes.
Also, it will be quite awhile before such a convention can be called. We’ll have to change the composition of the iffy state legislatures.
Things are going to change in this country, quite independently of the Liberty Amendment Project. Whether they redound to our favor or not is hard to tell. But they’ll definitely separate the men from the boys.
The way things are going, it won’t“withdrawal” or “armed rebellion”, but “collapse”.
“When in the course of human events . . .”
“won’t be”, that is.
Collapse makes it easier to regroup without Washington.
And a lot of people will die when they can’t get their insulin.
I’m curious to know how plugged in Levin is to the “51st State” movement in Colorado. I’d think the relative success/failure of that movement would be a useful gauge in determining the mood/ability of the populace to engage in Constitutional questions.
Substitute “attuned to” for “plugged in” above…
When, not if. But once that happens, I expect the project will find new usefulness. Or, if you prefer, it will have to fail before it can succeed.
What implodes (collapses) simultaneously as it expands?
A neutron star! kablooey-fwwwip.
Best not to be in the neighborhood, though.
And a lot of people will die when Obamacare kicks in, probably for the same reasons…
If only 29 states ratify of the 38 required, the amendments fail — but a great many states that don’t ratify will be razor-thin against, and those states’ polities will respond to that fact in upcoming elections.
In a project of this importance it’s essential to open, and keep open, as many fronts as possible, with the understanding that the first breach in the enemies’ walls will be exploited to its utmost to advance to the next level of the fight.
I like talk of (and preparation for) outright rebellion; I like talk of secession; I like talk of amendment conventions; I like talk of a reinvigorated Tea Party movement making inroads in 2014; I like however many other ideas can all be pursued simultaneously as possible, each one prepared either to say, “I am Spartacus,” or to be Spartacus, as the occasion demands.
2012 happened because of the single-basket problem, and while in times of peace it may make some sense to keep all of your eggs under your eye, these are not times of peace. The basket got stolen, eggs and all, and here we are.
people should stash away a few extra insulins is the takeaway here
You have to keep insulin cold or it degrades and then its worthless. It also expires, so stockpiling is no bueno.
I wrote this a few days ago at DP:
I am left with this:
1. this will occupy the next 2-3 years of ‘conservative’ thinking assuming it gets any momentum;
[Levin will be able to drive a lot of the momentum, and if Rush gets into it, that will encourage more, but the ‘thinking’ conservatives – of which I consider Jeff and many commentors here – are very few in number]
2. this is an effort to change the rules of the game during the game – yes, I know the Left has been changing the rules all along;
[I don’t oppose it for that reason. It is like stopping the DH in the All-Star Game in the 7th inning, all well and good, but ……]
3. it doesn’t repeal all the damage, only prevents future damage;
[….and it is not just the structural issues in DC, or even the political class that has formed, …]
4. it doesn’t address the problem that 50% or more of the electorate WANTS socialism/liberalism/collectivism.
[This attempt will not be understood by the general populace, just like ‘the GOP wants children to starve and grannies to die’, this will be used EXACTLY as it appears: the Right, for all it’s appeals to the Constitution, wants to CHANGE IT.]
5. we got here following the rules as laid out originally, even if it takes another two hundred years, these amendments won’t stop “liberalism part deux” even if it makes some of it harder;
[I don’t think the Left’s mindset will change, and so they will continue to eat away at the foundation, no matter what the foundation is.]
Going back to #1 – it freezes the ‘movement’ of conservatives through the 2014 elections, not that I think anything is actually happening. Tea parties are hanging on by threads (the workings of a couple diehards in each group) but vast majorities are seeing more and more damage and less and less effort to ‘do’ something because very little of the Right is doing anything….
Maybe I am too cynical, maybe it is just the annual summer doldrums, but I think most people are just waiting for the shoe to hit (dropped it has already).
I agree that it is not IF this fails, but WHEN it fails. The then what is 90% of the ‘conservatives’, tea party, 95% of the GOP throw in the towel and settle in for a long winter. Those of us willing and able to become the ‘anti’, will honor ourselves and fore-fathers….by dying in the struggle to keep what we have given away..
Levin consistently, both on his show and in his appearances, dodges this question — the justification being that we aren’t there yet, and the he likely can’t speculate openly given his public position.
That was my take as well. Media Matters is just waiting for one of the big conservative talkers to say something they can twist into a call for rebellion.
This is part of what makes DC control of the Internet so worrying: they already regulate every other wide-scale communication method.
Without communications, resistance will be difficult, if not impossible.
I hate to point this out, but “sitting idle in a car stalled on the railroad tracks, waiting for the train to come along” IS an option, even if essentially suicidal.
And as long as De Gummint Checks come, and their new Obamaphone is working, 51% of the populace seems perfectly willing to sit there, with the whistles coming more and more frequently, sounding ever shriller.
It might be a race to the finish between Levin’s Hail Mary and collapse from within, but it’s looking more and more like one of those old-style cheese rolling contests (if you’ll pardon the metaphor shift), where at least one person breaks a leg.
it doesn’t address the problem that 50% or more of the electorate WANTS socialism/liberalism/collectivism.
People’s wants are mercurial and the bulk of voters’ desires are purely emotional. Paint them a pretty picture, and they’ll fall in line. As far as I can tell, the majority of Americans have never been gung-ho patriots.
I’d like to see a serious Constitutional restoration effort, but for many voters, we’ll need a great and charismatic communicator, or the effort will never have a chance.
That still isn’t a certain fail, just a long shot.
Just so those who don’t have access to the video have something to work with (and to a lesser extent that those who do can analyze more minutely if desired), a transcript of the exchange between Crowley and Levin:
Crowley:
You know in 2008 President Obama spoke repeatedly about “the fundamental transformation” of the nation. Here we are five years later: we’ve got five years of evidence as to what he meant by that, meaning, *move the United States away from a Constitutional Republic based on individual liberty and economic freedom, toward a government dependency and welfare-state*. My worry is that he has moved us — he and the Left have moved us — past the tipping point, where more people are dependent on government than not, and that he’s actually changing the very character of the country. I worry about it: I hope I’m wrong. What do you think?
Levin:
I worry about it. I hope we’re all wrong. But on the other hand, I’m not about to curl up in a fetal position and surrender the greatest nation on the face of the earth. You know, my Grandfather fought at Iwo Jima and Guam, my great-Uncle fought at Guadalcanal, and you know what they’d be telling me today? “Get off your ass and do something about it.” Now the bottom line is “what do we do about it?” Do we keep begging that Congress fix itself? Do we keep begging that the Supreme Court comply with the Constitution? That Obama stay in town long enough to do what he’s supposed to do? No. These people have a design, they’re not the first. . . this is just, y’know . . . the trajectory in this nation is very bad, where it’s headed. We had an eight year respite with Reagan, and in my lifetime, that was it. And the next Republican President came in and lurched right back to the whole New Deal notion. If people want New Deal policies, then let them amend the Constitution for them. If they want to redistribute wealth, then let them try and amend the Constitution. I am suggesting that we propose a non-radical, Constitutional way to try and address this, and ultimately Monica, if the people don’t want to be free, they’re not going to be free.
Those 50% teat-suckers can’t have a lot of fight in them, except what you get when you take a binky away from a baby: lots of noise, but then they settle down and find another way to comfort themselves.
by dying in the struggle to keep what we have given away
I think this is the reason to go for it, even when it seems impossible.
Also, Amazing Grace. It took how many attempts to outlaw the slave trade in the Parliament?
This kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
Or by persistent efforts, lots of evangelizing, and using the principles in Levin’s book as a platform on which to attach the barnacles. Thus far, we’ve been floating from issue to issue: Levin’s book contains solid ideas — such as providing methods to override SCOTUS and congress — that HAVE to be appealing even to the Obamaphone drones.
It might be a race to the finish between Levin’s Hail Mary and collapse from within,
The Levin amendments can survive collapse because they’re ideas, not money.
Though speaking of which, mine’s on collapse before any amendments get passed.
What jumps out at me is stuff like “tipping point”, or “government dependency and welfare-state”, both as vague bullshit too easily swallowed to be of any serious use. But that’s just me.
but what would your grandfather say
Let’s include something about making SCOTUS decisions subject to ongoing ratification, with the lengths of times between needed votes dependent on the vote the last time it arose: 5-4 votes only last 5 years, 6-3 last for 10, 7-2 for 20, 8-1 for 30, and unanimous verdicts last until all members of the court that produced it have been completely replaced, plus 20 years.
After they have expired, they are eligible for a rehearing the first time the circumstances allow.
Depends which Grandfather. One worked for Dallas Power and Light as head of the bill collection department (who hated FDR with a fervor I seldom saw him direct at anyone else), another was a cattle rancher out Glen Rose way, choir director and radio-show host (who I never knew all that well but who also I never heard speak of politics of any sort), and the last one was a democrat Post Master trade-unionist in Independence, Kansas, who was party-connected in ways I never got a glimpse of directly. So, there’d a been a disagreement, I imagine. Y’know, what politics is.
Related?
Also, it seems worth noting that where Levin says “non-radical” he’s actually hedging because radical has acquired some bad connotations over the years.
Whereas, if radical were only taken as “going to the roots” (which isn’t bad if you want to know where the thing grows from), that’s what he means, because that’s what he does. But he can’t use radical that way because people are so fucking ignorant they’d think they’re privileged to understand by it something he didn’t mean by it (and he knows this), so he just works around them. It’s an upsidedown-world, so he deals with it the best he can, by orienting upsidedown.
They’re not radicals, they’re “#OccupyConstitution”.
Liberal heads a-splode.
Texas grandpa sounds like he should get the conch first
both my grandfathers were terrible terrible people
just rotten
Picked up Levin and Ferguson the old fashioned way today. I wanted to pick up Rahe too, but those cheap bastards at Harms & Ignoble won’t let you use one their precious discount coupons on anything published by a university press because those are “textbooks.”
Too bad too. I saved a shitload on the New Cambridge Medieval History that way back in the day.
mr levin’s book and mr. sowell’s black rednecks & white liberals arrived today.
The only reason to go to the roots is because you’re planning to pull them out.
Levine is right to be wary of “radical.”
But yeah, there’s something definitely anti-establishment and counter-cultural about returning to first principles.
And that is this: what happens if, say, only 57% of the states ratify? Does that mean…we can then throw up our hands, console ourselves for having tried, and then resign ourselves to live as subjects?
If just a dozen states ratify, it signals to Washington that the pushback is coming in a serious way. If just a dozen states decide they’re not going to play along any more, we’re going to see some really crucial Constitutional questions come up and take center stage. We’re going to see several governors asking the EPA how many divisions they command. We’re going to see CJ Roberts weighing the damage to his “legacy” that would be caused by seeing National Guardsmen squaring off against Federal agents.
I believe that our would-be overlords in Washington are more akin to bullies than they are to proper dictators. A handful of states standing up and punching them in the face is going to make a lot of these guys re-think their approach to representing us.
And if I’m wrong, and there really is enough thirst for power at any cost, then at least we’ll know that we’re not alone when we make our stand. The Left will crow about how “more than 95% of Americans don’t agree with the extreme fringe neo-secessionist cousin-humpers,” but the rest of us will understand that such statements effectively mean we’ll have fifteen million brothers willing to fight at our side.
And no, I don’t blame Levin for trying to keep the “what if all else fails” question under wraps. Contemplation of open, armed rebellion is great at the movie theater, but if you’re trying to draw Grandma June and Joe Sixpack into your movement, it doesn’t make sense to frighten them off with talk of violent insurrection.
Though if we can get Jennifer Lawrence on board as our spokesperson, that might get us to the best of both worlds…
Memeorandum is chock-a-block with concern trolling today.
They is worried on the left.
If just a dozen states ratify, it signals to Washington that the pushback is coming in a serious way. If just a dozen states decide they’re not going to play along any more, we’re going to see some really crucial Constitutional questions come up and take center stage.
THIS.
Keep in mind that we the populace — and no doubt we the state legislatures — are far too accustomed to the abuses that are heaped upon us. The Fed is continually pissing in the states’ corn flakes, and I have no doubt that the states figure they have no choice but to submit.
Learned helplessness is a real phenomenon, but so is a preference cascade. When a legitimate, non-loony effort to push back, HARD, against Washington’s abuses seeps into the public consciousness, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it anymore” could see a revival like never before.
Also, Hewitt is down as one of the nay-sayers, but he’s also going to interview Levin today.
Should be hella interesting. All of HH’s tribbles are on Levin’s side, btw.
Of course, who’s ever won a war by attacking on multiple fronts? Making Germany fight on two fronts during the ’40s didn’t do a damn thing for the Allies, did it?
So, just ignore the guy who’s talking about doing a lot of different things instead of assuming we can only win if we find one single magic strategy.
…that will be targeted for defeat with everything the statists have at their disposal.
…like they did last year.
ot but wtf
Video: The freaky deaky “SWAT schoolbus drill” clip
What then??
We aren’t the sorts who will shave our heads, sit on the Courthouse steps, douse in gasoline and then strike a match. Because those required white robes just aren’t Outlaw!.
That leaves Community Organizing, grassroots outreach to the survivors, after what’s coming proves beyond any doubt that dancing Leftist-style is unsustainable, and people who embrace(d) it are/were soft, weak-minded ideological dreamers who obviously will have suffered the worst after the wall-hitting.
Prior to that event, some ideas here…
“Now that we’re all Haters”
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/08/10775/
fools
Put that straggler up next to, or in place of, ‘dreamers’.
I think the markets will tear everything apart before any sort of convention starts.
Also, while the people in the White House are stupid, they also understand thuggery. The White House will do anything and everything, up to and including arrests (with a couple of “accidental deaths” while in “protective custody”) to prevent any sort of Constitutional Convention.
Levin is assuming the people in the White House are willing to play by the rules, when the reality is that the White House has regularly ignored the Constitution and has no problem using whatever regulatory, tax or police agency it needs in order to retain power.
This is the biggest mistake every big name conservative continues to make, and that is the assumption that we are still a nation of laws. We are not. We have become a nation of men who pay lip service to the idea of law.
I consider talk about any sort of Constitutional Convention to be nothing more than spitting into the wind. America is in debt beyond its ability to pay, the family is all but destroyed and close to 50% of the population is on the dole.
The country is a financial flywheel that has spun up beyond its design capabilities and, with the cracks that are showing, it’s only a matter of time before the country detonates.
…and this is one of my good days.
Perhaps, but the big issue will be which states ratify.
If it’s just the Usual Suspects of Texas and most of the South, it will be spun as an the argument that “Reconstruction didn’t ‘take'”, and thus needs to be re-applied.
If it’s many of the Western states (Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, the Dakotas etc.), well those aren’t really “sustainable” areas, and probably need to be transitioned away from human habitation into giant nature preserves, similar to the Buffalo Commons proposal.
Levin is scrupulously careful on his radio show to make sure that he defines his calls for change as those within the legal process, never by extra-legal processes. He’s no dummy; there’s an army of prog listeners waiting for him to make a misstep and complain to the FCC. Levin also alludes to various forces in Washington that are leaning on his show/advertisers.
It’s a mark of respect by the left that he is so feared that they want him off the air. If the fit ever hits the shan, you can be sure that he, Rush and a few others would be at the top of someone’s enemies list.
McG is right – Levin’s ideas are just one part of multiple fronts in the soft rebellion. But if they get people talking, they potentially get more people opening up more fronts. The power of ideas is strong.
HH actually seems to dig where Levin is going with this.
He wasn’t on Friday. Musta read the thing.
dicentra, HH is a squish who understands that his audience just tripled because Levin’s listeners tuned in. Of course HH is going along, for now.
dicentra, I apologize, that remark was too harsh and you don’t deserve that.
Again, my apologies.
It’s like that whole sub-plot thing in Mission Impossible episode I can’t remember which, where sometimes, you have to kill the star of the movie to kill the bomb about to go off in his head. The whole amendment thing is like treating him for a headache…
shoot, I’ll bet that sounds like I’m channeling something the happyfeest would say…
I dunno, I thought your remark about HH was spot on.
On the whole, doesn’t the reception begin to look a little rancid around here? Certainly does to me.
Ernst, I’ve no doubt I was right, however, there was no call for me to take a direct shot at dicentra.
Oh. A Direct shot. I thought you were just pointing out the obvious.
You’d better show Di how sorry you are.
punch yourself in the face
DO IT!
geez, Ernst, you’re trying to mellow my harsh, aren’t you?
c’mon, it’ll make you feel better.
wait, I want some popcorn first…
I couldn’t say for certain.
What does rancid look like anyways?
does shooting off my mouth and shooting myself in the foot count?
It looks just like your question Ernst.
If you hadn’t fessed up to the implied you ignorant slut between “Dicentra,” and “HH is….” I really don’t think anyone would have noticed.
Then again, there’s that whole Bene Gesserit Truth Sayer vibe about Di, so maybe you should grovel some more. Just to be safe.
I’m in a light mood sdferr. Don’t mind me too much.
On the other hand, though. This is what focusing narrowly on the process looks like.
I have the book. I’m going to read it.
And to be quote frank, unless and until enough of us here do read it, this is the level the discussion is going to take place on.
What it will look like elsewhere on the web, or in the real world, I have no idea.
“, doesn’t the reception begin to look a little rancid around here? ”
i’ll say. pointless stuff followed by confusion.
In the interests of comity, and a more academic level of discourse:
Earlier Blake wrote,
That’s why I think Ferguson’s Great Degeneration ought to make for a useful counterpoint to Levin. Levin adresses one or two aspects of the overall problem, i.e. legal and political institutions. Blake hits upon the other two aspects of institutional decay addressed by Ferguson, economic and societal.
Thanks, Ernst.
Full disclosure: As a true American, spitting into the wind is part of my genetic makeup. If I think it is necessary to show up armed in order to protect participants in a Convention, that’s what I’ll do.
That’s exactly as I see it. Even if we succeeded in getting a Convention, and it succeeds beyond our wildest dreams, we’ll have to pay for the debt what’s already owed, and there’s just not enough today’s Americans with the backbone necessary to work it off.
America is living a crisis of division. A moral – spiritual divide, a cultural – ideological divide, with an actual high-dollar debt that’s coming due, with the majority of Americans wanting and expecting more costly debt-increasing goods and services, with no real way to pay for any of it.
Both political parties have offered ‘free’ stuff for votes; both parties are, as jg has ‘splained, corrupted beyond salvation.
It’s the Wall what’s coming. I can only hope otherwise, but how else can we stop and reverse this runaway locomotive, in time?
For us common folk, I have no idea “then what?” But, there’s a trend starting among the wealthy.
Apparently, this has been going on for several years.
And, notice, for all the threats of renouncing citizenship if Bush were re-elected, citizens are actually doing it under Obama.
Hell, smart billionaires were trying to lower their tax bills BEFORE (but BECAUSE) Obazm got into office.
Transcript of HH’s interview with Levin is here.
it doesn’t address the problem that 50% or more of the electorate WANTS socialism/liberalism/collectivism
I’ve heard Levin address this on his show before while talking about the book and he touched on it during HH’s show. Based on history, you don’t absolutely need a majority to fight a major battle and win.
From the HH transcript:
HH: …how do you expect to maintain or even attract the attention of the drones or the low information voter long enough that they realize their lives are on the line here?
ML: Well, you don’t. You know, the American Revolution was fought with about 35-40 percent of the support of the colonists. It wasn’t fought with overwhelming popular support in the country. You had about a third of the people opposed to it. So, and if you look at, and I’m not saying this is…look, revolutions all over the world, the majority never leads a revolution. It is a committed army, a significant army of individuals pursuing what it is that they pursue. And, the fact of the matter is a lot of people sit on the sidelines under all circumstances and conditions, as what happened in this case. And yet when you look at these Gallup polls, Hugh, one after another, 40 percent of the American people are conservative, 20 percent say they are liberal, it’s the 20 percent who control the federal government in terms of an institution and trajectory point of view.
And as dicentra noted above:
“Those 50% teat-suckers can’t have a lot of fight in them, except what you get when you take a binky away from a baby: lots of noise, but then they settle down and find another way to comfort themselves.”
A lot of those 50% will be the ones sitting on the sidelines. And in the event of a collapse, they will be the ones mostly dying in the big cities as they turn into war zones.
I think McGehee is quite right. This should be one battle on one of many fronts.
At the same time, we must work on gaining control of states, or at least counties.
I still like my idea of as many of us moving to the same general area – say, out West – and ending up with enough of us concentrated in said area to have a better chance of taking control.
I think those who have expressed the belief that we may be too far gone as a society are more than likely right, but, perhaps, a benefit from waging the fight Mr. Levin wants would (1) show us exactly who we can count as allies and (2) would smoke out who are our enemies and who are the lost causes. I remain very cynical that The Liberty Amendments offensive will triumph, but it will provide (1) some excellent recon and (2) help us sharpen our verbal weapons. It also may provoke a delay in the collpase to give us more time to prepare.
Please understand that I’m just thinking out loud here. My feelings would not be hurt if you ripped any part of what I just wrote to shreds [unless you’re that moldy yellow creature].
[…] Regarding the first: (Which was not asked here, but was asked by Jeff Goldstein at his blog) Based on what I wrote above, I believe you already have your answer. We are on a course headed […]