Thanks for the comment, Steve. I suppose I thought that the item "A child's mind in an adult's body" covered immaturity, LOL

Thanks for the Chuck Missler referral, I have enjoyed his Genesis presentations...so far! He has over 20 odd ours of it! I think I am on Day Six now!

I agree Rainrider, that say 50 men good and true, two from each state, may well be able to create a valid amendment, or even a set of amendments, without overriding our freedoms and liberty. That is problem number one, to select those 50 men that would remain good and true once in power positions such as the delegates would assume. We had great fortune on the very first go-around; my question is, can we find men of similar caliber, education, and dedication to American principles today? Obviously, I see problem number two being twenty-six of those delegates feeling empowered to create a faction dedicated to some principles we know are un-
American, and then proceeding to capture the convention. Can this be prevented? I am not sure it can.

Liberal and Progressive Attitudes, Traits and Beliefs
While I have observed a number of liberals and progressives that display quite a few of the following attributes, I do not mean to say that all of them practice all of the very negative traits I have listed. But being a liberal or progressive necessitates having many of these more obnoxious traits.
It must be pointed out that most liberals and progressives are well trained in the techniques of false argumentation—some 50 or so dishonest maneuvers in debates one must be prepared to counter—see http://www.johntreed.com/debate.html.


Indiscrimination on All Things
A Child’s Mind in an Adult’s Body
Thinking is Bad for the Masses
Good is Evil; Bad is Victimhood
Right is Wrong; Wrong is Victimhood
All Societies are Equal
All Behavior is Permissible
Talk is Preferable to Work; Idleness is Bliss
Cannot Choose Between Alternatives
Utopianists and Collectivists
Seeks Impossible Ideals
Giveaway Artists for Other People's Money
Moral Relativity
Consummate Liars
Smugness to the Extreme
Superiority Complex (Inferior in Fact!)
Ivory Tower Complex, Especially Professors
Self-Satisfied for No Known Cause
Egoistic
Never Wrong, Never Admits Being Wrong
Social Tyrants; Kultur Aficionados
No Common Sense
Ad Hominem Attacks
Uses Highly Derogatory Words against Others
Does not Like America and Wants Vast Changes
Supercritical of Others
Shortsighted, and Incurs the Rule of Unintended Consequences Often
Demands Perfection of Others; Picky; Will Use Their Slightest Error
Elite Intellectual and Status Snobs
Vicious When Cornered
Disingenuous in Arguments
Is Always on the Wrong Side
Political Correctness and Multicultural Diversity
Avoids Personal Responsibility
Global Warming is Their Key to Everlasting Power
Believes in Reapportionment of Your Money: Tax the Rich!
Woman's Free Choice for Abortion; A Fetus or Embryo is Not Human
Feels Guilt for Their Lifestyle, History; Bleeding Hearts
Feels Entitled for Their Contributions to Society
Uses the Victimhood Syndrome; Nanny State Approach
America is a Racist Society; Corrective Laws Needed!
Rejects the Death Penalty
Narcissistic
Believes in Heavy Regulation by Government of All Activities
Believes in Gun Control; Only Militias Authorized by the 2nd Amendment
Believes in Euthanasia
Believes in Free Health Care
Believes That Profiling is Wrong

Supports Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants
Wants to Rewrite the Constitution
Believes in Takings for Private Use
Believes in Same Sex Marriage
Supports Social Security as it Stands
Wants Large Government and Greater Taxes
Supports the UN; World Government
GWOT is Wrong; it is a Criminal Matter
Supports Greater Welfare
Believes That Conservatives are Nuts
Your Sources are Always Wrong!
My Way or the Highway
Government Must Fund Abortions
Coal Industry Must be Regulated out of Existence
Illegal Immigrants Have the Right to Government Benefits
Thinking is a Hate Crime

Objectivity is undesirable


The Liberal Manifesto
Paraphrased from "The Liberal Mind"--Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr.
1. We are all children of a parental government...
2. Self-reliance and the role of individual responsibility should be diminished in this society in favor of collective caretaking administered by the state.
3. The individual cannot exist without the state.
4. Because most citizens are not competent to run their own lives, they need government guidance to do what is good for them.
5. Collectivism is the proper political philosophy for an ordered society.
6. A good life is a government entitlement owed to each citizen regardless of the nature and quality of his acts and their usefulness to others.
7. In respect to economic and social situations, prior binding contracts or agreements based on tradition may be invalidated by the authority of the government.
8. A large government regulatory apparatus is needed to exercise control over the citizenry and to ensure that social justice is assured.
9. Massive welfare programs that are administered by the state at taxpayer expense are necessary to meet the needs of the disadvantaged.
10. Men should not be held responsible for their bad actions, but rather such actions should be viewed as the collective fault of the society.
11. Traditional ideas about the separateness and sovereignty of the individual are invalid.
12. Material subsidies are to be paid to persons designated by the state based on need, suffering, or inequality, not on merit or desert.
13. Human nature is highly malleable.
14. Descriptions of how to act and how not to act should not be based on the distilled ethical and moral wisdom of the centuries, but through canons of political correctness or evolved through the creation of alternative lifestyles in a spirit of cultural correctness.
15. Established traditions of decency, courtesy, and sexual repression are unduly restrictive and should be rejected because they support class distinctions that oppose the liberal ideal of social equality. Pornography is good.
16. Rules governing human interactions that have evolved over centuries deserve no respect. Traditional Judeo-Christian moral and ethical codes such as the Golden Rule must be rewritten to reflect modern ideals of moral relativity and multicultural correctness.
17. Equality before the law is a fiction.
18. An individual who commits a bad act should not be held personally responsible for what he does even if he does it with malicious intent.
19. US foreign policy makers should assume the American imperialism and capitalist exploitation have been major factors in provoking aggressive acts by other nations and by religious or ethnic groups.
20. It is the duty of the state to determine which groups or classes of persons suffer from deficits in material security and in social and political status and to cure these deficits through government action.
21. Time-honored conceptions of justice as reflected in common sense, ethical philosophy, judicial practice and the history of political thought are invalid.
22. Traditional ideal of self-determination, self-responsibility and self-reliance are invalid.
23. Economic activity should be carefully controlled by the government.
24. An adult citizen's time, work effort and ability must be largely apportioned to the state.
25. The primary purpose of politics is the creation of an ideal collective society run by a liberal elite committed to a just redistribution of economic, social and political goods.
26. The traditional social institutions of marriage and family are not very important and should yield to progressive alternative lifestyles that emphasize the satisfaction of sexual and relational needs.

An Article V convention would have the inherent power to be a runaway convention because it would supersede the power of Congress and would possess the power of the sovereign people to alter or abolish the current Constitution as its delegates would see fit. (Furthermore, the process of selecting delegates is not clear, at least not to me, and the quality and biases of these delegates would be crucial!) Proponents of such a convention believe that a single-subject convention can be held by some sort of rule-setting in advance, but, once seated, the delegates, acting with a majority, could nullify those rules and proceed to enact whatever suited them. This thread is an example of the many possible pressures on delegates to consider all sorts of amendments, and hence, to change the rules. Fortunately, the safety valve for this outcome would be the states ratification process. Since we have never had such a convention after the first congress, there is no historical information to fall back on and guide the process. I suggest proceeding with great caution!

Correction; ...fundamental necessity for people in our form of democracy to act as oppose to thinking and orating;

Mr. Debs, your post screams for a cogent reply, but I haven't mulled your position over very far. However, I will state my first order reactions: 1) Majority rule comes to mind as a fundamental necessity for people our form of democracy to act as oppose to thinking and orating; 2) Thinkers that form a majority, because they have reached common decisions with each other in the past, seek to continue their majority thinking over time, and to develop a philosophy of their thoughts so they can comfortably approach new issues and old ones as they arise with a fair certainty of holding the line and that their compatriots will lean in the same direction when voting time comes.; 3) it is most natural for these like thinkers to give themselves a label, since it identifies them and their thinking to others who may be persuaded to join their group (hence Republicans, Democrats, Liberals and Conservatives, etc.); 4) Those without a label tend to be a smaller number than the well-established labelers, hence they have a far less chance to affect the debates and decisions of the majority. Being unlabeled, then, is to be an outsider, and largely ineffectual in our system. Most people of strong beliefs tend to reject the outsider position simply because they want to get things done. Should the number of outsiders become much larger, though, relative to the insiders, then we will have kind of pendulum effect on the philosophies being used to direct voting, thus creating a horse with three heads. I don't believe that would be a good thing for the nation.

There is usually a huge difference between the promises made during election runs and the actual execution of those promises once elected. Perhaps there should be some accountability for candidates to live up to their promises if elected. Perhaps a formal statement of promises should become a record of promises, and as things progress, whether there has been any real attempt to make the promises come true can be observed formally. This is done informally now, but the suggestion is to make it a formal exercise.

The suggestion to have a new Constitutional Convention is fraught with perils since it cannot be limited in scope. Thus the entire Constitution would be up for change, and there is considerable strength in the Left to defeat change proposals that would be beneficial from a Conservative view IMO. After the 2/3rds of both Houses have proposed a Constitutional change or when 2/3rds of the state legislatures propose a change a convention will be called. However, I have seen no mechanism for selecting the representatives that would attend that Convention! Perhaps I have not searched this far enough, but it may be worth nailing down before such a Convention takes place!

One amendment I would favor is that of reverting to state legislatures to select Senators, rather than the current method of statewide runs for the positions. I do support term limits for both the house and senate; perhaps three terms for house representatives and two terms for the senate. In addition, there must be a way to further reduce the need for our representatives to scrounge for money to run for reelection. This need goes for the presidency, too. It is horrible to contemplate a candidate spending well over 50 to 100 million dollars to run his campaign. Then, too, I believe Mark Levin has a good idea: let any legislation passed and signed be vetoed by state referendums and require 3/4th of the states voting no to end the legislation.

I really appreciate the advice all of you have welcomed me with, and I have begun to explore the people you all suggested. It seems that many discussions on here are between conservatives and liberals(if not progressives, whom I take to be either socialist or communist hiding under that label). I have been a conservative all my life, it seems, and strongly believe in following Jesus and walking with God as the best way to live. The one thing I do not like is that those elected to high office often do not live up to their promises--from either party. But those who would change our Constitution radically, or actually bypass it will receive my worst condemnation!

Writing about one's self is not the most fun one can have, but here goes. My name is Mann, and I am of advanced age, born in 1930, which makes me over 86 today. I have had a fruitful 43-year career in military systems engineering for several large defense contractors. I retired in 2000 and began my quest to define and write down my worldview in as simple terms as possible. After an outline that took 10 pages, and a draft that took 169 pages, I have begun to revise the whole mess, which involves a lot of reading, and a lot of rethinking. There have been a few signposts along the way that have steered me in the direction of Christianity. The first one was Natural Law/Rights/Duties. The concept of natural Law led me to Thomas, and a number of other Natural Law adherents such as George, Finnis, and several others. They in turn led me to trace the concepts back to what is perhaps their Biblical origins (or even earlier), that of Agape, the Decalogue, and the Golden Rule. Viewed as a system, the conception of Thomas made sense to me, but in the end, posed the ultimate question: should I place my faith in an unseen Trinitarian God? This I have done. Do I have doubts? Yes! I have sought out the proofs of God's existence, including the five set forth by Thomas, one by Anselm, and a few other tries. but none of these logic forays seem to hit the mark for me. Thus it seems logical to say that to become a Christian, I needed to make a great leap of faith and embrace that which the religious proponents offer. So I am working on it still...