Opinion

Throw a Life Preserver into the Sea of Liberty Ideas

life-preserversBy Diana Erbio

People have short attention spans. To even get a brief hearing, one must first break free from the crashing waves of chatter. A loud, clear voice might grab the attention of someone willing to throw a life preserver. If a life preserver comes, it must be latched onto quickly and firmly. If not, the would-be messenger will most likely be churned to the bottom of the sea, never to be seen again, unless its lifeless form floats to the surface one day.

The media chooses whether or not to throw out a life preserver in the form of news coverage or a favorable headline. That may or may not get some attention from the masses for the message that is hanging on for dear life, immersed in a surging sea of sludge.  For the message and messenger to be plucked from the sea, people have to choose to save it. That is where responsibility comes in. I wonder, do Americans today have the interest to save and preserve the ideas that will keep them free?

Mark R. Levin’s book “Plunder and Deceit” (Threshold Editions, 2015) throws a life preserver to a dire message from the depths. The message is for America’s rising generation, which he defines as young adults from eighteen to thirty-five years of age. Mark Levin poses these important questions, which I believe can be retrieved even by those with limited attention span margins…

“What do you choose for yourself and future generations? Do you choose liberty or tyranny? And what do you intend to do about it?”

Mark Levin also has a short message for those of us older than the rising generation and it too is in the form of a short question…

“Can we simultaneously love our children but betray their generation and generations yet born?”

I can only hope the message I seek attention for has not already been churned to the bottom of the sea, buried along with ideas that did not grasp firmly and quickly enough to the life preserver thrown. Hopefully it was able to hang on long enough to reach those with superior attention spans, if not those with Twitter-age attention spans. To those I have reached, PLEASE let’s all try to reach some in the rising generation and warn them of what might be lost if they do not lengthen their attention spans and choose to hold on tight to their liberty.


If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter
and Download the AMAC News App

Sign Up Today Download

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!


Subscribe
Notify of
22 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tim Markland
7 years ago

I don’t know what the answer is but the p c people make me sick. Who made them the know it alls of the world. I am a conservative Christian White man who is Not ashamed of being so, I work at a big Metropolitan airport and what I see everyday is remarkable No One is paying attention to anything other than their Cell or I phones, I know what I would tell all med students…Study Neurology of the neck discs and Carpel tunnel disease, Because no-one will be able to look up or use their wrists in 2 years. The dumbing down in America is in overdrive. Learn how to look up something without your devices, Open your eyes and your hearts, You will find a world that is worth saving. Have a blessed day

Jerry Hargrave
7 years ago

Whether an individual is willing to accept the words of the only human being who lived and gave his life totally for the good of others and the glory of the creator of everything that exists is the decision that each person makes for himself. But it is a fact that the life of the Jesus is so significant that we measure time by the terms B.C. which speaks of time “before Christ” and A.D., which actually stands for the Latin phrase anno domini, which means “in the year of our Lord.”

May I remind the reader of the tremendous TRUTH that the author, Diana Erbio the freelance writer wrote with the words “For the message and messenger to be plucked from the sea, people have to choose to save it. That is where responsibility comes in.” I repeat her question: “do Americans today have the interest to save and preserve the ideas that will keep them free?”

Now please reflect on the words of Jesus, the Christ ()Messiah). “You shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32). Then in John 10:10, He said “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.”

Would you recognize that it is your responsibility and privilege to choose life. The answer is clear if you will read the Gospel of John with a mind that is open and willing to hear the truth.

PaulE
7 years ago

There are a number of authors out there, Mark Levin being merely one, who are trying to get the public’s attention, with varying degrees of success, concerning the dangerous direction the country and its people are on. They are all competing for the ever-shrinking attention spans of the general public. The general and growing apathy of the public to listen to anything that requires thought, reason and a degree of mental focus on the issues being presented to them is of course something every one of these authors is trying to overcome.

Complicating this effort to educate and awaken the public to the very real dangers posed by staying on our current societal path is a mainstream media, that effectively functions as little more than the official propaganda machine for the Progressive movement. News and information are filtered by these organizations through the lens of whether they adhere to Progressive ideals. If they do not, they are either not reported or publicly vilified. Whole topics routinely go un-reported by the mainstream media in this country. Where once they tried to present a thin veneer of impartiality to the public, now they openly and publicly advocate for the ideals of socialism. You also have a public education system that now serves primarily as Progressive indoctrination centers for the young of our nation in order to systemically dumb-down them down and thus make future generations even more acceptable to the of the socialist ideals being advocated to them. So getting the message out by any of these authors is a difficult process, but they must keep trying. The alternative is for America to become another in a long list of failed socialist democracies. Where the standard of living continuously declines, freedoms evaporate and the future becomes a bleak existence of hoping the meager government hand-outs can continue a while longer..

Diana Erbio
7 years ago
Reply to  PaulE

Like I wrote on the AMAC FB post of my article we might get the message out to young people via FB, but we also have to try to communicate verbally the warning that liberty must be protected or it will be taken by power -hungry authoritarians. We MUST do this in quick sound bites because no one wants a lecture and as I said in my column “people have short attention spans”. :-)

PaulE
7 years ago
Reply to  Diana Erbio

Yes, I have to agree. When I speak with young people, I try to make conservative principles relevant to their daily lives. That’s the surest way to hold their attention. :-) Show how a conservative solution would address their concern or problem in a better long-term way than the usual progressive pablum they’ve been conditioned to believe in. Definitely don’t preach or start talking about the Founding Fathers or the Constitution. That will just get them to zone out. They can’t relate to anything from a historical perspective beyond last week or last month and most of them have been conditioned, via the media and their teachers, to view certain keywords as triggers (you should really do an article on what the colleges and even some high schools are now doing with this whole trigger nonsense) to signal they should either walk away or ignore anything further from the speaker.

What I like to do is present two solution options to a particular problem or issue they have: One conservative based and one progressive based. Although I don’t tell them which is which until the end, so they’ve had a chance to think about them without any pre-conceived bias. Then I quickly walk them through how each option would play out for them over time. You would be surprised how many young people actually come to the conclusion that the conservative-based solution is in their best long-term interests. Then when I tell them the option they favored is actually the conservative based solution, it really gets to think a bit about why they were so in favor of progressive this and progressive that.

DA
7 years ago
Reply to  Diana Erbio

Right. The young don’t read books. The latest conservative books are read by already converted sixty yr olds. I have tried handing out books. Anyone over fifty recalls magazines wherein the articles were lengthy and pictures sparse. Not no more. They don’t even read magazines, so that means elec media. I just came from the funeral of a beloved person. The young cannot leave their phones alone even then. The answer must lie in one liners on FB or the others.

PaulE
7 years ago
Reply to  DA

That’s right DA If it can’t be condensed to fit on an ipod screen, most young people won’t read it. It also has to include a lot of colorful graphics, pictures and videos to hold their limited attention span. Just like a three year old.

Ivan Berry
7 years ago
Reply to  PaulE

Diana, DA and PaulE, you each have valuable comments and if utilized, a great benefit to the cause of limiting government to its ascribed areas of responsibility.
A further observation that seems to be overlooked by the majority is the simplicity of the Ten Commandments as well as the conciseness of the Constitution. If you jump over the “begats” in the Bible, it becomes a more simple read.
In teaching Bible study to those in assisted living and nursing homes, it was always a benefit to keep the lessons simple and definite in purpose. Many of the elderly also have a tendency for short attention, so stating the point explicitly and posing an example or two while avoiding denominational differences helped to make the efforts both pleasurable and benifitial to those addressed (as well for the teacher).
Likewise, in addressing our founding documents, describing the Declaration as the ideal to be sought with the explanation as to why the colonies resisted the king,and the Constitution as the means in achieving those worthy goals, breaking the verbal essays into digestable small bites helped in explaning to any age group that was being addressed.
The Declaration in its high points is a simple and sweet statement of aims and causes.
The Constitution, outside its organizational components is also simple and sweet. Neither document in condensed and digestable form are complicated, and can be taught gently to any age group with a suprising degree of success.
Progressives always always over produce laws/rules/regulations, regardless of which party be in charge. Wilson had his 14 points; God had but 10 Commandments. Even our Bill of Rights were but ten.
On a personal note, I’d like to express my appreciation for your efforts. It’s those like you who make of this newsletter an interesting and learning experience. Without being mushy, thanks.

Diana Erbio
7 years ago
Reply to  Ivan Berry

Thank you all for your feedback! I think we are on the same page, which is we must reach out to others and spread these important principles our great nation was founded on.

Ivan Berry
7 years ago

While it is true that everything Mark Levin has advocated should not be pursued (like his “Liberty Amendments”), most of his ideas are sound. It goes without saying that he is well versed and an intelligent commentator. You want a quick explanation of the Eutopia construct, see his “Ameritopia.” Want to know how the Supreme Court operates, see “Men in Black.”
He does not well suffer idiots nor those who disagree with him (even when it may be that he is wrong). But having said that, listening to him rant on radio is no way similar to reading his publications.
Diania, not having yet read his latest, “Plunder and Deceit” that you reccomend, I will reserve judgement.
Your submission was interesting, non-the less. Thanks.

Russ
7 years ago
Reply to  Ivan Berry

I think that Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendments are a brilliant idea, and perhaps the only real hope for restoring liberty. The federal leviathan will never reform itself. Both major parties are totally committed to big government…albeit slightly different versions. In addition, the country is really being ruled by a completely unaccountable administrative state. To hope for some savior or saviors so to come along and rescue us via the election process is simply participating in the Bread and Circuses crap that the political class has been promoting for many decades. Political power must be decentralized and returned to the states. Article 5, i.e. The Liberty Amendments may be our last hope.

Diana Erbio’s article is right on target. My fear is that it may be too late. There are very few people who understand the problem…or even care. We Americans, along with most of the world, have been dumbed down and indoctrinated with progressive ideology for generations. I would bet the farm that everyone reading this strongly supports one or more progressive programs such as Social Security, Medicare or many others on the laundry list of “indispensable” programs. How do you solve a problem if you don’t even recognize that it exists?

Ivan Berry
7 years ago
Reply to  Russ

Russ, were the problem the Constitution, Amendments could be approriate, but it is not the Constitution that is broken. With both parties complicit, how could a mix of right/left come up with any Amendments that would not require compromise on the part of the right? The left never compromises. Who in our State and National governments equals the integrity and wisdom of our founders? We should address the problem, not blame it on a document, that for the most part, spells out the authority and responsibilities of each branch of government, as well as what was reserved to the States or the people. That is what the government is supposed to follow. If they will not follow the Constitution, what makes you think they would follow the Amendments?
And how would they balance a budget? Raise taxes, cancel programs, shrink government, have continuing resolutions or print or borrow more money from the poorer nations to support our run-away spending, or change the definitions of discretionary and non-discretionary funding? Do you know? Do they?
Term Limits, another problem. Should we ever manage to get Constitutionalist in office, how could we keep them if they were thrown out with the bad after any specified limit to term?
One other thing, without going back and re-reading, some of the Amendment proposals in the book were themselves unConstitutional based on the delegation to the central government by the Federated States.
There is also no assurance that a Convention could not easily become a run-away Convention and completely revise the document we have essentially been required to follow for over 200 years. I do not wish to risk losing it. Do you?

Earl
7 years ago
Reply to  Ivan Berry

Ivan Berry: I agree with Russ here on his comment about the Article V Amendments convention process first proposed by the same man who is responsible for having had the Bill of Rights included in the Constitution, George Mason, and for having had it written into the Constitution by James Madison, and approved by everyone at the Constitutional Convention, including the presiding officer, George Washington. On the subject of the Article V Amendments convention process, I would trust the judgment of any of the signers of the Constitution before I would trust the opinion of Ivan Berry. All 13 of the state ratification conventions approved it. A few of the people who have spoken out in favor of this Amendment process were or are James Madison, Abraham Lincoln (First Inaugural Address), Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, Ted Cruz, and certain other current Republican candidates for the Presidential race. Each time the subject of Mark Levin, or any of his books, or the Article V Amendment process has been brought up here your response has been to make false or unsubstantiated allegations about Mark Levin and his books and about what the goal of the ‘Convention of States Project’ is. For example, nowhere in “The Liberty Amendments” did Mark Levin suggest proposing a balanced budget Amendment, nor does the Convention of States Resolution which has been passed and sent to Congress by four states and passed by one legislative chamber in each of ten other states. Russ didn’t even mention a balanced budget Amendment in his comment, so you just pulled it out of thin air as a diversionary tactic as you John Birchers always do. That is where your ideas come from even though you will more than likely deny it because the John Birch Society has been thoroughly discredited as you probably know in this regard by the fact that they advocated for an Article V Convention to propose Amendments for about 25 years before they decided they were against the idea a few years ago. See the April 15th, 2015 article by Ken Quinn entitled “The John Birch Society Denies Its History and Betrays Its Mission” on conventionofstates.com website. You would like to say that the US Constitution was the result of a runaway convention, but that would be crazy, because that would be tantamount to admitting that the document which you are holding out as perfect came about as the result of a runaway convention. A lot of John Birchers will say that, because apparently they don’t realize how crazy it is to make such statements. Can you give any example of any Convention of the States which has become a runaway convention? (And there were many conventions before the Constitutional Convention of 1787.)

Rik
7 years ago
Reply to  Earl

Earl, if Progressives are for it, I have to be against it!

Earl
7 years ago
Reply to  Rik

Rik: The Convention of States project is a conservative movement, contrary to what the Liberal Democrats, the John Birchers, all big government progressives, and the low information crowd which DA belongs to, would have you believe. The conventionofstates.com Resolution is a resolution for Congress to call a Convention of the States to propose Amendments which will impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, and which will limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms in office of its officials and members of Congress, and this is the only Resolution which the conventionofstates.com Project is advocating for, and no other type of amendments can be brought up for discussion at such a convention, because if any delegate tries to do so he or she will be ruled out of order immediately. Also, in case such an amendment should be brought up for a vote, any delegate who votes in favor of it will be subject to immediate recall and probable class A misdemeanor charges by the state legislature which sent him or her, and any vote cast by said delegate will automatically be cancelled. Most, if not all states will pass such legislation well in advance of any convention, such as HB1110, which was introduced in the Texas House of Representatives this year. Incidentally, the COS Resolution passed the Texas House of Representatives by a wide margin and would also have passed the Senate if three State Senators who are also John Birchers had not refused to show up in their assigned committee room to establish a quorum so a vote could be held on HJR77. Don’t worry; I know their names, just like I know the name of the President of the Arizona Senate, Andy Biggs, who has refused to bring it up for a vote in the Arizona Senate for two years in a row now, because it would have surely passed.
In Alaska, Florida, and Georgia, the three relatively conservative states which passed the COS Resolution last year not a single Democrat voted in favor of it, and in Alabama, which passed it this year, a few Democrats voted in favor of it, which is all to the good, but it would have passed without them. So if this is a big government progressive movement, where are all the leftists who are slobbering all over themselves, according to DA, in anticipation of repealing the second Amendment? Why are they voting against a convention if they are so eager to have one? What are they afraid of? Why don’t you join the 200,000 plus conservatives who are advocating for a Convention of States in order to limit the terms of the members of Congress and of federal judges and members of the Supreme Court so they can join the rest of us in living under the laws which they are creating? Maybe then they would be more careful. What do you say,Rik?

DA
7 years ago
Reply to  Earl

Earl, I know next to nothing about the JB society. What I do know is that in 1787 Karl Marx wasn’t born yet and the international communist movement was just a gleam in the Devils eye. Please remember that along with Ds from liberal states, any future convention would be also staffed by rino/moderate types who have Already demonstrated their lack of loyalty to the constitution many times over. I respect Levin, but as Ivan Berry has said often, the problem is not a deficient constitution but rather progressive ideas being gradually adopted by both party’s.

Earl
7 years ago
Reply to  DA

DA: You contradict yourself when on the one hand you imply that since the framers of the Constitution were unfamiliar with Marxism, they wrote a document which is deficient, and incapable of dealing with Marxsm, and on the other hand you imply that the Constitution is perfect by saying that “the problem is not a deficient Constitution”. Incidentally, the ideology of communism did not originate with Marx and Engels, even in America. The Pilgrims who founded Plymouth Colony in 1620 were socialists, but it only took them two and one half years to abandon their communistic ideas and change to a capitalistic system, when they all began to starve to death because no one wanted to do any work or raise any crops under the communist system. The utopian ideas about communistic societies are old ideas, but since they are irrelevant to my discussion I’m not going to get into them any further other than to say that most of our founders were educated men who had, no doubt, heard of them. Thomas Jefferson who wrote the first draft of the Declaration of Independence had about 7000 books in his library, if I remember correctly.
As I explained to Rik in my above comment, promoting the conventionofstates.com Resolution is a conservative movement, with a conservative mandate, and most of the delegates who will be in charge of it will be conservatives who will be bound by their own state laws to follow that mandate or face serious consequences. Right now only eleven state legislatures have both chambers controlled by Democrats, while the other 39 have one or both chambers controlled by Republicans. Whatever delegates they choose will be sworn to uphold the conservative mandate of the convention, regardless of what state sends them, and any Amendments which are proposed by such a convention would have to be ratified by at least 38 states. So first, there will be no leftist Amendments proposed, and second, if there are they will not be ratified. There is no way that Congress or the President or the courts can, or ever will be able to follow the Constitution as originally written, because it is being amended on a regular basis by the Supreme Court; almost always by one or two Justices to suit their left wing agenda. The Constitution is also being amended on a regular basis by Presidents and a Congress which is controlled by progressives who have remained in office far too long and should not be eligible to serve in Congress at all. A Constitutional Amendment could easily place term limits on how long members of Congress and Supreme Court Justices could serve. One of the best ways to make them more responsible would be for them to be forced to get out of government and go back to private life and live under the laws which they are creating.
I do not understand why people like you and Ivan Berry and the rest of the John Birchers think that it is okay for one leftist on the Supreme Court to amend the Constitution in an unconstitutional manner on a regular basis, but it is not okay for the state legislatures to amend the Constitution which the states created in the first place. You cannot change the Constitution by nullification, which itself is unconstitutional, but you can go to federal prison for trying to do so. The Article V Amendment Convention Process is lawful, conservative, Constitutional , and it will work. So, DA, why don’t you go to conventionofstates.com and join the other 200,000 plus conservatives who are advocating for an Article V Convention to propose Amendments? How about it? It’s the way of the future.

DA
7 years ago
Reply to  Earl

First, thank you for taking the time to respond in such detail. Since I am here to learn, I will revisit this in my thinking.

DA
7 years ago
Reply to  Russ

Russ, the list of leftist orgs who have been quietly supporting a COS is long. First, they slobber over deleting the 2A. Second, they would rewrite the constitution along the lines fdr proposed late in his last term, formally enshrining a govt that literally provides every need, want and desire. As the famous quote says, any govt strong enough to to do that is strong enough to crush any vestige of individual autonomy.

PaulO
7 years ago

This article held my interest and attention up to the mentioning of Mark Levin.
At that point I stopped reading.

Levin thinks he’s a constitutional scholar, a legend in his own mind.
He’s nothing more than an AM talk radio meister.

Rik
7 years ago
Reply to  PaulO

Ahh, BozO, what you can’t stand about Mark Levin is that he IS a Conservative and speaks out, and challenges idiotic Liberal Communist bullcrap! … Like politically incorrect speech, such as when Liberals refer to prostitutes as sex-care providers or illegals as undocumented aliens! … Too bad, you MIGHT learn something!

Earl
7 years ago
Reply to  PaulO

PaulO: Mark Levin has written at least five books which have been number one on the New York Times best seller list in the last ten years. You seem to not have noticed that fact. What have you ever written that anyone would be interested in paying for?

22
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x