If the Government becomes oppressive, what's our legal recourse? "The Great One" Mark Levin (Author & Radio Talk Show Host) joins Sean Hannity to discuss his new book 'The Liberty Amendments' for a compelling hour of this Audience Special." Early in the video (2:45) Levin relates the specific reason George Mason was so emphatic about Article Five. Article Five of the U.S. Constitution permits holding a States convention to amend the Constitution. NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. And Levin explains why we need to do this. A great many members of Congress are giving Levin's book of 11 suggested amendments a serious look. Hear him talk about his book for appx 40 minutes on the Hannity Show a few weeks ago. [video=youtube;vJdwc3q5s0o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJdwc3q5s0o[/video]
These people are nothing but sociopaths and predators looking for reasons commit mass murder and seize power because a 60% majority vote didn't go their way.
What is Levin's solution for police harassment of minorities, selective enforcement of the laws, pat downs, and profiling?
one course of action to reducing oppressiveness is to not use words such as "law" and "enforcement", but replacing them with "obligatory guidelines" and "applying". I've wondered if this word law is an acronym that stands for: loving all war, and calling obligatory guideline appliers "law enforcement" just increases this mortification of police officers to want to use force, especially deadly force, more often.
The government is oppressive. The problem is, people think of the state as an organization separate from the people. In reality, it's merely a manipulation of the people, a virus. If the people turn against the government, the government has no power. Soldiers are people too. The majority of atrocities have been committed with the approval of, in some cases by, the majority of the people. So it's not really a struggle against the cop who wants to cage you for smoking a plant, it's a struggle against the angry mob who want to cage you for smoking a plant, but outsource the job to thugs. [hr][/hr] The recourse against this is to think for yourself and not blindly obey the state's decree. You might give a mugger cash when he points a gun at you, but you wouldn't go out of your way to follow his demands. The same thinking should apply to the state - if the risk is worth the reward, do it!
But you know Obama has the magic to transform things that will last for generations and many administrations. Removing him won't reset everything back to a neutral state. He's leaving his mark on this country for worse and for worse.
And I'll ask you an equally misplaced query: What are you going to do about Human Rights violations in Syria?
Im no Levin fan, but my solution would begin to remove the monopoly on force and return to an equal balance of justice. Currently the system leverages the burden onto the induvidual. When the induvidual is in defence the induvidual is the only person without a financial motive keep the racket going. If you question any of this, try to hand out some FIJA fliers in front of your local courthouse or attend a defence trial. In both cases it wont take long before the phrase "innocent till proven guilty falls flat". BTW, departments nation wide arent going to very dark blue uniforms (basically black) to be peace officers, its because they are being trained to be law enforcement officers.
