By YHWH, Editor-in-Chief
You might call us the Grand Jury.
We aren’t scholars, but voters. We share a common enemy, or thought we did, until we ran into this little war inside conservatism over some arcane constitutional point about an untried half-sentence in Article V of the U. S. Constitution.
It shouldn’t be enough to lose friends over or cast aside fellow Americans. But it has gotten mean.
I do know enough history to know that at no place among Madison’s papers did he call George Mason a “stupid poltroon”, a liar, or “bugger of little children.” or anything like that, even though Mason nipped at the Federalists’ heels throughout the convention.
Among scholars this tawdry practice of personal beat-down began among political cum pseudo-philosophical whelps, starting with Karl Marx at the First Internationale. By the end of the 19th Century this practice of attacking the personality, character, and intelligence of opponents had become so refined Leftists gave up debating in public altogether, choosing instead to make their cases and launch their attacks in journals, where they could never be confronted nor refuted. It was sort of like the internet of our time.
Then a fellow we all know, Saul Alinsky, turned this trick into a popular best-seller which has been a handbook for personal destruction for over 40 years. With this book firmly in one’s grip, one never needed to feel compelled to rely on anything even remotely associated with the truth ever again.
And we all know Alinskyism by its fingerprints.
As members of the jury, with two sides trying to convince us of the righteousness of their cause, and not being as scholarly as our tutors, we rely on fixed stars in the firmament to guide us. We rely on a blend of common sense, honesty, and decency to weight things in the balance. With just a little light thrown on our constitutional understanding, we can connect more than two dots and can certainly tell the difference between an honest salesman and a con-artist.
And thanks to Karl Marx, we know them best by the words that they use, not only directed at us mind you, but to each other. Even the most uneducated of jurors can tell bad manners from good, and braggadocio from humility. Even the non-Bible reader knows that a soft answer turns away wrath, while grievous words stir up anger. (Prov 15;1).
In this Article V debate, you don’t have to be Dante to know boorish behavior when you see it.
Among our editorial group here there is not a single person who has a clear preference for one side of the Article V argument, or the other, for both purport to want to fight the same common enemy.
But one side clearly has found common ground with the style of Marx and Alinsky, if not also their political substance. But such behavior exposes a psychology, even psycho-pathology, common among the Left, and these days among the young in general that is rooted in self-love, avarice for power, status and money, and an indifference as to the harm that is inflicted. There is no mistaking it.
As fact-finders, we have determined that the dirty play and name-calling in this debate finds its origins in the pro-Article V group(s). It is part of a planned ground attack, and most, if not all these attacks lead directly to Mark Meckler, Michael Farris and their network of friends at The Convention of States Project. The vicious attack on Publius Huldah, especially since she is a relatively unfunded and powerless unaffiliated woman has been so mean (and dishonest in its inferences) that we had to draw the line.
It’s above our pay grade to know what drives Mr. Meckler and the hate-filled Alinskyites who follow his lead. It most likely is money at the top, recognition and status at the bottom, but it all has a hateful psychopathy that runs deep.
But love of country it clearly is not, and our purpose here is to make sure as many ordinary people, state legislators, and people of good will know this and will know to seek advice about the virtues of Article V from other sources.
Source: Why We Are Here |