Essentially american and the ideas in the motives of progressives. So, one of the things that hit me in the first chapter is what we call conservatism is really americanism. We probably a lot better off if we named this whole idea what we are trying to conserve is the values, principles, ideas that made this country so unique and free and prosperous. I think that is a was place to start. What is americanism to you . Guest that is a great points. That is exactly my point in the book, too. We have a superficial discussion about americanism in american schools. I said lets pick out what americanism is. People talk about populism, nationalism, conservatism, and, as you know, i research, research, research and i dug into this and the founders told me where to go. They told me to look at cicero and aristotle and sydney and locke and montesquieu and even some of the contemporaries, adam smith, edmund burke and support. What this americanism means and the first chapter, as you know, i spent time on that and what is interesting is even though they didnt agree and every single nuance there were fundamental understandings to the founding. The revolutionary war was fought over americans. What does that mean essentially, we will get into this but the core issue is what we see in the declaration of independence. When people read it they quickly go over a couple of words that are most the critical words in the declaration of independence like natural law and laws of nature. From my experience in school, was never taught to me and never discussed. Its never debated and yet, that was the core of the american founders. This will issue of americanism is crucially important to understand because it is under attack. Its been devoured by this other force, this other movement called progressive best. Americanism if you look at the decoration of independence is most formal, consensus position of the founding. There they were already at war with britain and they wanted to make a public declaration, a decoration to the entire world of what it was they were doing. The states, and individuals, the second Continental Convention in philadelphia and they debated this and they discussed it. There were several drafts of the declaration of independence but the original draft, of course, as we know was jefferson but there were other declarations. The first one before that was the virginia declaration of rights written by george mason. Jefferson borrowed from and they both borrowed from john locke. Then you had the pennsylvania declaration written mostly by Benjamin Franklin for you at the massachusetts declaration written by the adams cousin, sam and john. Almost all were identical and offered to natural law, all referring to unalienable rights, all referring to Property Rights and even the happiness part of the declaration. I get into that and were all that comes from. Im hoping that when youre done with chapter one you are excited and inspired and invigorated by the most fascinating founding of any country ever on the face of the earth. Host i think we forget how different americanism is and in the Second Chapter you provide the contrast of the whole progressive idea of against various names in the ideas in the history and the philosophy to get into that in the third chapter but they say that progressivism, at least those who call themselves progressives this is about the quality and about governing based on the will of the people that you point out clearly that it really is completely the opposite of that and talk about progressivism. Guest americanism is about the individual but creating a society that nurtures the individual; that protects the circle of liberty around the individual yet has a Civil Society so you can function. Laws that are predictable and stable and yet, dont molest the individual, dont dominate the individual. That is what were talking about versus progressivism. Its an ideology, whether its marks or hagel or russo or others. Thats an ideology that essentially requires the individual to surrender their individualism to the state in a state promises that if you do that they will provide for you; that it will ensure that you are taking care of in certain ways and ensure that egalitarianism, equality. Equality or egalitarianism in that way is tearing is on. It destroys the nature of the individual. Free will with the consent of the individual, the state becomes very powerful. There was a time when this was theoretical. In the 1850s, 1830s and so forth that it is not theoretical anymore. These ideas of progressivism which i prefer where other books call statism as a self identify as progressive but theres nothing progressive about it. It is regressive. So, its an ideology that is completely counter to americanism in our founding and its that ideology that i also explained in the book because it is devouring the purposes of the american revolution. In the counterrevolution. A non shooting counter revolution of intellectuals in government and bureaucrats that are destroying the basis for the american founding. Host what could be the motivation for this . If im not being too cynical, they believe that this statism is the Central Power is better for people . Is that their motive . Guest thats a very interesting question. I address it this way. There are the mastermind and then there are the followers. The followers, the people who were sucked into this ideology, i think, for the most part is unwitting or its selfish and they think they will get something for nothing or whatever it is. Or, as i point out in a different book, maybe they are just not content and they reject the society. They attack it. For the masterminds, i dont give them much quarter because at this. 100 years of this egalitarian ideology embraced in Foreign Countries and so forth has been bleak and dark, very detrimental to the human rights. This notion which is decentralized decisionmaking in the hands of masterminds from experts, professionals were not experts or professionals, people who wish to impose their own personal policy police and the rest of society which require some sort of police state whether it is a massive bureaucracy that opposes its wealth through crimes of punishment or whether it is some other form of imposing their will. The fact of the matter is they are never done. Even the toaster in your house now, the government has to decide if the toaster is acceptable. The paint in your house, the crib in your house, all of these things. Contrast that with our philosophy americanism. Look around you. You got so many wonderful things going on as a result of americanism, as a result of the founding that the government attacks. You go into a Grocery Store today you going to a 711 today and its open 247 and i dont typically but you can go in and pretty much get everything you want wine, beer, hotdogs, cookies, and get whatever you want but how many societies have 711s . Almost none. You go into a major Grocery Store and you can get meats, fish, and my point is this the average person today is better than kings and queens who lived 250 years ago. The airline system. You get on a plane, its airconditioned, we complain about the city and we dont like the pretzels. Think about it. You go across country 40000 feet in the air, airconditioned, fed, bathrooms, four or five hours across the country, unfathomable. Government to create that liberty created that. You go into your home today and you click on a switch electricity comes on. That is americanism. You have fresh water, you turn on the faucet, cold and hot water and that is americanism. All of these things are americanism. The regulation of these things, the banning, control, the taxing, that is progressivism. Host mark, you point out and i should have a paragraph to read but i suspect you can give it to be verbatim. The results of this centralized planning, the Administrative State, has been so abysmal and tragic not just in the us but that history and around the world we have seen what it does to people and it doesnt lift up the common man, it oppresses the common man. It creates poverty instead of what you were just describing how basically a free market system that can make some very wealthy actually creates a better situation for all the rest of us. Why cant people see the obvious here . What is keeping americans from understanding that these original american ideas were so superior to what we are dealing with now . Guest first of all, if you believe in americanism you believe in the power of the individual. If you believe in progressivism, you believe in the power of the handle of human beings controlling all the rest. I have always said as human beings are imperfect and we are but why would we want a handful of them controlling the rest of us but if they make bad decisions, and those bad decisions are pushed throughout society. If i make a bad decision, then i made a bad decision for me and my family with minimal consequences. Look at obamacare. We dont even know who developed obamacare and we dont know why they developed it. Massive government intrusion and we were told experts and professionals and was the biggest mess on the face of the earth. They dont even have the wherewithal to fix it and they have disrupted a significant way our Healthcare System. Now, i pointed out because more and more of the centralized decisions are being made and you ask a great question. Why dont people see this . Because the endless promises if you will just surrender more of your liberty, just surrender more of your property we will create paradise and people want to believe it. For some reason people think that governmental decisions are noble and individual decisions are selfish. In the book i talk about many men but including john dewey. John dewey said one of the most important of the progressive intellectuals of the time who lived to be well into his 90s and had an enormous amount of influence. John dewey made that they had to and ill use my words infiltrate the education to push this agenda, to change the mindset of the American People. This rugged individual, pioneer spirit, all of that stuff as well and good but we have a modern complex society and we cant just be . We just cant encourage the individual to be what they want to be. We have to manage this. It organizes. To create plans. We cant allow business to go off and do railroads on their own and we can allow individuals to go off on their own interests. We have to figure out how to advance our society and, of course, they turn to marks in hegel and russo and people of that kind who push and ideology of collectivism. All of their ideas which they impose on the people to the power of centralized government they wrapped in the best interest of the public, the best welfare for the public, the general will of the public an interest in the enough, jim, push comes to shove, even though they talk about populism and popular sovereignty its all about centralized government taking decisions, imposing its will on the population. I dont need to make is too complex but i also get into the book about the question of liberty. What do we mean by liberty for the progressive it is called positive liberty and for the rest of us is negative liberty. The were to be reversed. Oh that is positive. They always steal the nomenclature that it must be good and no, it is not. What we mean by liberty is look at the bill of rights. Negative liberty. That means we have liberty and the negative is against government encroaching on our liberty one thats what obama didnt like about the constitution. He said its a negative document because it tells the government what it cannot do but it does not say what it must do. Guest exactly. Positive liberty as has come to be known as the government telling people what they can do. When they say we will give you free healthcare and will give you free college thats called positive liberty and of course we know it is not free and of course we know it will be an Economic Disaster and so forth. Negative liberty is basically stop interfering with my life, stop trying to dominate me, stop trying to legally molest me and we understand we are not anarchists and we understand there needs to be basic law and basic rules but beyond that pretty much it should be liber liberty. Host in the book you talk about the confusion between democracy and republicanism the idea of a republic. I dont think think people are very clear. Ask my why that is important when looking at americanism in progressivism. Guest great point. This is crucially important. The founders of this country feared two things centralization . They just bought a monarchy for eight and a half years and they knew about Central Government. They were enormously well read. Aristotle, cicero and all the rest. They saw what happened in rome and they saw what happened in greece. They saw what happened in britain to america. They were concerned about centralized government. Look at the constitution separation of powers, the senate needs to be chosen by the state legislator in the Electoral College and the only directly elected body of the house of representatives and the courts are distinct in that you have lifetime appointment. This is what they were debating. Why . Didnt want to government. They also they want hypocrisy. The declaration talks about unalienable rights. Unalienable rights are not unprovoked. It doesnt matter what your neighbor thanks about your unable right and it doesnt matter if weve applied the cider referendum but these are godgiven, eternal truths, universal truths or as aristotle called them universal laws versus particular law. Statutes and so forth. They were concerned about that in particular john adams talks about private property law and he said desperate lets take a country of 10 Million People is a 2 Million People and property and if it subject to a vote those 2 Million People will lose their property and youll have nothing but the law of the jungle. So, they rejected populism and they rejected it. They didnt reject the consent of the government. They wanted republicanism. He also rejected nationalism in the sense that a centralized government to what i explained in the book is some people confuse nationalism with americanism and its americanism that we are trying to defend and its our unique founding and crystals that were trying to defend. Thats a very good point. Host you and i talked about this before the show and just the concerned that a lot of folks dont understand but were talking about in you have the book and i know you wrote the book to promote the understanding. My observation of progressives that i know in the congress and some of them, as you said, are the masters and some of them have been coopted by this idea is the best way to help people is to plan for them. It seems that the natural fall position of humankind is this idea of progressivism that the powerful control the powerless and even though everyone, i believe, has a yearning in the heart for freedom the tendency is for folks to feel like they need to be controlled or they need to be the ones controlling. Americanism is, as you expand it, to meet a supernatural is not a natural default position. When you speak of things such as the creator or natural law and virtue and understanding human nature and why government needs to be set up to restrain we are talking about something that requires a lot of education and understanding and it requires people to constantly push for those ideas to persevere, to be vigilant and i think our founders understood that when you got a republic i think Benjamin Franklin said that when you have a republic if you can keep it and they kept talking about vigilance of the people. The country naturally, i guess, people naturally go towards this centralized power and we have to constantly resist it. What are your ideas on that . I know you talk about it throughout the book that this is why you wrote it so that we can resist it but how can we deal with such a natural part of human nature which tends to go towards progressive thought . Guest here is the thing. When the country was founded it was understood why we fought the revolution. The revolution began in boston. We werent fighting over healthcare and we werent fighting over food stamps, they werent fighting over egalitarianism. They were fighting over liberty. It was understood that when they met in philadelphia, more than once, second continental congress, declaration of independence, later after the articles of confederation failed, the Constitutional Convention also in philadelphia there was a common understanding among those men, among those men of natural law and what that meant. What i am trying to do in this book is put us in that place, see what they were thinking in arguing, who they were relying on and they didnt invent these ideas. Why they are so crucially important and today its not just the default position progressivism but its the only position discuss. You will not find these issues discussed in any Republican Caucus for the house and the senate. You will not find these issues discussed on most of talk radio, or cable tv. What has happened in the last 110, 120 years is the Progressive Movement has succeeded. It has succeeded and resonating throughout society. It has succeeded through the culture, through the media, through the Republican Party, clearly to the democrat party. There are democrats who understand this, Bernie Sanders knows exactly what is going on. He knows exactly what is going on. He may in a very inarticulate way put his views out there but if i were to talk to you today about hegel and marx and russo he would know exactly what im talking about. If i were to talk i wont embarrass you but about locke and montesquieu and cicero and aristotle and he have no idea what im talking about. The point is these men of the left and women of the left stand on the shoulders of the progressive intellectuals of 100 years ago stand on the shoulders of the philosopher who preceded them hundred years before. There are a handful of us in a certain percentage who know this and who are trying to confront this and usually we are attacked and put down within the Republican Party or within their own surrogates because we see and understand what is going on. The question that some of us raise are there be too far gone that we cant move back or what we need to do to try to pull back because its only going to get worse. The coercion and the bullying and the centralization where does it end . Jim i often say we will will they give us their blueprint and tell us when they are done and in other words when you will be done with healthcare when will you be done with immigration . When will you be done with taxes give us something that we can debate but they never will and are never done. There never done controlling the individual and the trajectory is in toward increased autocracy. So, if we lose out one day it will be a very, very sad thing. We do everything we can through public means whether it is books if people even read them anymore whether its radio or tv, youve done an excellent job when youre fighting within and trying to effect the nature of the Republican Party and the nature of the debate when it comes to the constitution in article five and these are things that ten years ago no one would have even thought of doing so these are the things we have to do. Host the progressives in congress and i have worked with them and some are well intended but some want to be benevolent masters but they intend to be masters here. They know what they want on healthcare, for instance. It doesnt matter whether obamacare fails, they want centralized government run healthcare and i think a lot of believe that is what best people. The problem we have on the other side and im set with republicans on the house and senate on this is that they dont necessarily understand how americanism could work in healthcare. The idea that a free market Healthcare System could actually create better quality at a lower cost and better access because they dont know exactly how that system works and it cant be put in a government program. So, its like refighting something with nothing, a lot of times. A lot of republicans tend to go centralized light. You talk about it a lot on your show. I dont think a lot of us understand the counterintuitive idea of adam smith. Millions of people pursuing their own interests, doing their own thing and actually creating more positive society, better organize society that a few people planning for everybody. That is counterintuitive. I dont know how you see that and you talk to a lot of people on your show and you talk to millions of people but how do we deal with this counterintuitive argument when a lot of people are making laws supposedly on our side and dont seem to understand how americanism works . Guest because we never talk about it. We dont talk about what you just mentioned. I would say to the American People which handle a politician you think are so smart that they can understand and run the Healthcare System . Unless none of them are doctors almost none of them have worked in hospitals and where do they get their genius from prospect where do they get the professionalism from . Nowhere. Theyre advancing an ideology, a theory. They are trying to impose it on us. That is what is going on. The public is not happy with what is going on in healthcare. We are on the winning side but we never explain to people what is going on. The public resists politicians and the government but what the progressive does is make promises. Youll get this for free and will make sure there arent profiteers in the sort of thing but the point you make about the harmony of interest, as adam smith called it, invisible hand which is marked now what he meant and why it is so crucial is people are making and any given day 320 billion people are making a trillion decisions. It is not possible for a government to untrained department or agency to know better about those trillion decisions. It is impossible for people even the most studios and brilliant people, even the most earnest people to know what to do and they cant possibly acquire the knowledge that 320 Million People have in exercising their own life and in pursuing their own interests. What happens is rather than trying to figure it all out they take the personal policy preference and impose it on a free people. It becomes difficult to explain that to people because we been indoctrinated from Elementary School through. Ill give you an example. Industrial revolution. It was the greatest economic event in human history. It created them middle class and we half and it created so many of the products and services that we have in improved the quality of life and yet, when you watch documentaries on pbs and other things what do they show you, the still meals where theres people are being shot at the strikes and the pollution from rockefeller and crude oil and they show you all the things that took place but they dont show you the vast majority of the American People had their lifestyles greatly increased with electricity and for the ford automobiles and change the entire face of the United States and even today we benefit from what was the industrial revolution. Some will say what about the robber barons . Well, they had to create the capital necessary in order to build a railroad system, assemblyline system and so forth and so on and i find it ironic that these professors and other socalled scholars of the left are very troubled by that but theyre not trouble by government monopoly. In other words, businesses out there and im not pressing monopolies from just making a point. Businesses that become so entirely successful with writing beetle people with goods and services need to be broken up a government which is centralized doesnt provide excellent goods and services but the more centralized is the more inhumane it is but they dont want the fight for it in the governmental sector and the differences between centralized power in government and the private sector is government takes up. Government can the people in prison. Private sector does none of that. Host there are some positive things developing outside of politics but is missing the technology decentralized communication may be in a lot of ways we now have so many ways to communicate with people and in a lot of ways this has gone back to the individual and everyone has their cell phone that they can access any information in the whole world and we see that affecting a lot of district even the media was a few Major Networks now because of the internet has been decentralized. Do you think that is desperate give some promise that individuals who understand the freedom they have to make their own decisions because of technology or choosing their own media source do you think that will work its way over into politics with the yearning to bring Government Back closer to home and make it more personal . Guest i wish it would. But how many efforts have been made now to control the internet . You hear the attacks on the social media and this truly diverse and dispersed media platforms and i dont like a lot that is said about me but are we supposed to destroy social media . The point is i think there will be this effort by government to continue to control and give phony names like neutrality when in fact, government is trying to control the internet and things of that sort. I think that is all good, these competitive forces. Im all for them. But i keep going back to something you said earlier. How do we reach the vast majority of the American People to inspire them to defend their own liberty . This is the great question. One of the things i discussed in the book is this liberty requires virtue. Liberty without virtue is not liberty. It can be whatever it is, it can be violence, free to do things that are not appropriate, virtue, moral order, natural law. John adams talks about this. Jefferson talked with us. I have a letter in the book where jefferson, to old minute this book, dobson writes adams and theyre talking about liberty. Jefferson writes this unbelievable letter talking about greece in rome and focuses in on room. He says you know, john, take a look at rome. Take a look at rome. Cicero, brutus and cato. The great republic. Even if they, near the end of rome, had control of the government it wouldve been too late. Why . Because he said the people lost their beauty. There is nothing jefferson said that governments can create and theres no governmental system can be created to save the people who dont want to be saved. It is similar to something frank said where franklin basically was trying to create a constitutional system that would allow people to pursue their happiness and to pursue their interests and would limit government, the centralized government. But if the people are not resolute theres nothing we can do about it. So, we have to be resolute and we have to maintain that you for all of it collapses. To answer your question, there is something i struggle with all the time and i thank you do and a lot of people do which is have we reached the point where we cant get back . Are we now overwhelmed in the culture and politics and in the media with this progressivism, phony egalitarianism of the smothering of individuals, has it become so entrenched in our institution that theres no way to rip it out and i say this we have to do everything we can to confront it, too debated, to explain to our fellow citizens what is taking place. We simply have no choice. Host i dont think we have the right to give up. When people tell me, jim, weve gone too far, ive been concerned and i iran for congress because i was concerned about the dependency of government and how it would take that virtual way and that desire for liberty. And the objectivity of the voter. I was definitely concerned about that. You never give up and when i see that it seems like its insurmountable and this is what i tell crowds if you want to give up, think about the men sitting at the table signing the declaration of independence. What chance do they have to with . Slim to one by any objective standards but liberty, virtue, the things you talk about were so important to them because they had a clear contrast of what the opposite of that was and weve forgotten that. We havent had to live like the type of oppression that will be upon us suddenly if our liberty is taken away. We cant give up and i will continue to fight and to do more to support conservatives on the inside but theres a lot more we can do and you talked about it and im working on it with tom and it fits in with what i hear the states talking about now is i just went to a convection in denver of a lot of state legislators and the whole discussion was about federalism, more than i ever heard and states were realizing that they needed to take back control and this is not the complete solution but it is an element of virtue when people begin to wake up and states have sued the federal government against obamacare amnesty, almost unprecedented pushback at the state level and you been talking about for several years and i really didnt pay much attention of this idea of article five until you and tom came to visit me and my last place of employment and made a compelling case that the founders anticipated where we are today and gave us a mechanism to restrain the federal government and we call it the Article Five Convention of state the convention to propose amendments and what you talk about article five and what your transition has been from maybe taking about it one way and how you think about it today. Guest a couple of things. Something interesting going on in the states. Federalism. Federalism, as you know, is the tenth amendment and its the disarmament under the constitution except in those areas where the constitution carves out federal power. The state conventions would never ratify the constitution where state or federal departments and agencies dictate to the states where federal judgments dictate to the states and so we have had in essence a rewrite without a Constitutional Convention and without amendments. It happens every day, as you and i have discussed. Congress meets and apparently its a Constitutional Convention and the Supreme Court and when the president issues an executive order, the bureaucracy is out 3800 regulations that a Constitutional Convention. The other things going on in the states before i get to article five just to lay the foundation because of some confusion. We have republican governors who claim to support federalism and dont let the government getting in the way who lobbied recently the Republican Senate not to change obamacare and medicaid. It was found money that are present on the dollar balance their budget. That is a disgrace. They claim to the plate pedal is him and they want the money from the federal back taxpayer on the one hand and they claim they support federalism. They dont. Thats a big problem. Then we have blue states where some of the citys claim that their sinks were cities and they claim federalism. As you know, immigration is a plan early federal and is in the constitution and they claim basically nullification of the federal law because their ends justify the means so we have all of that vision going on. Article five Convention States i say to my conservative friends i thought you support the constitution . Support the constitution except that part of it . Why dont you accept that part of it . That is the fire alarm. Article five is simply the method, to methods to amend the constitution and it is spelled out there and there was one method originally when they were debating in philadelphia, as we know from madisons notes and that would allow two thirds of both houses of congress to impose an amendment to the state legislator and you need free force or 38 state legislators to ratify. Theres another part, george mason, today before the end of the Constitutional Convention and that all the stood up and said this cant be. What if we have an oppressive congress and what if we have an outofcontrol federal government . The Congress Wont propose anything to fix it because they are the problem. The state legislator should have a role in this. Theres a second part on the article five amendment process that allows the states to do what the states have always do done. Meet, discuss and debate and come up with ideas. All of this does empower the state legislator to have a convention, not a Constitutional Convention but a convention of the states to discuss, and propose amendments to the constitution just as if congress and you have to go through the same ratification process and it takes 38 states to ratify. We have these fear mongers pseudo conservatives among others were saying we have a Runaway Convention. How do you have a Runaway Convention with 38 state legislators have to approve whatever comes out of that convention . It is not possible. It takes 13 states to stop whatever comes out of that convention and not only that but i thought we supported federalism. I thought we had faith in the state legislators. We dont have faith in the state legislators and we dont have faith in any government anymore. Youre not a federalist if you oppose Article Five Convention of the states and you dont support the tenth amendment. All this does is allows the states to meet on certain specific subjects, that they know in advance that the state legislator decide how many delegates are going to be sent and theyve already been meeting and talking to some of the elements have been discussed and i proposed my own, the liberty amendment is to limit the size and growth of the government and limit their taxing and Debt Authority and to turn limit members of congress to term limits for justices that have a debate on these issues because if we actually believe that there will be some kind of reform coming out of washington that is created this design thats built laws and to prevent the public from having real effective input it wont happen. Host i have a lot of empathy for the critics of article five because i was one myself because i had really not studied it and i came to washington believing we could solve the problem here and i came in 99 in the house and tom was there when i and no two people fought harder to restrain spending balance the budget and back in the late 90s we talked about balancing the budget and pretended we balanced it one year with farming from Social Security and other things. Now we have gone further away from the idea and for president at President Trump sense a budget over and it doesnt really balance and in out years it says it might if the economy grows but if you talk about balancing the budget in ten years, even Republican Leadership will say that you are extreme. I took the time after you came to make a presentation, you and tom, to look at article five. Its actually pretty short and simple. Like you said, it gives the country to ways to amend the constitution and they are treated with equal value. One is not a radical in fact, when people say we could have a Runaway Convention, first thing i say is hey, we already do. We already have a Runaway Congress and bureaucrats and runaway judges and courts and the chances of 38 states taking away their own rights and the rights of their people is slim to none. It wont happen. The way this is set up in the version that tom and i came up with and that you advocated with three subject matter areas restrain the government fiscally, balancing the budget, do it with general accounting principles and limiting taxes but balancing the budget alone wont do any good at the federal government still is trying to run all areas of our lives. We have to restrain the federal government jurisdiction over the states, things like Unfunded Mandates or managing our schools or healthcare and the things they dont need to do. I continue to be a believer in term limits. Whether its term limits of bureaucrats or judges or congressmen and senators but i think its an act of mercy to make sure that no congressman stays here more than 12 years. Twelve states have already done this and ive been meeting with states for the last few months and ive been encouraged that more states realize that we frankly dont have much to lose and if you ask a person who is opposed and you say okay, if you think this is not a good idea, what is your solution was what do you think congress will balance the budget . And i have come to the conclusion, mark, as you have that there are only two ways that will stop the government from spending. One is a complete economic collapse and the other is if the states do what the founders anticipated for such a time as this is to call a convention to propose amendments that could not be runaway. Ive come around to your point of view and been speaking about it everywhere i have a chance. Im optimistic that this is something that a lot of the things you talk about in americanism if we continue to pursue this article five it will educate americans what damage the Administrative State has done and what our founders envisioned as far as the solution to that problem. You have been talking about it for longer than i have just how do you see the progress or the hope on that front . Guest we have 12 states, as you said, who are already in. Almost with no publicity. Its been very quietly done but there are millions of grassroots advocates who are pressing it. I cant think of a more american approach to something that is going on. Its not violence, its not extraconstitutional, it is within the four corners of the constitution. Were trying to use the constitution to save the constitution. There is nothing more, i think, positive than encouraging the state legislators. Here is a thing. I spoke in front of hundreds of state representatives who are skeptical and i looked at them and i said you have a duty under the federal institution to help your country. You have more power than congress under the federal constitution if you step up and help your country. This centralization of government we live in a post constitutional. , for the most part. Much of what the government does is extraconstitutional. This is exactly what the constitution calls for. We have these conservatives who run think tanks, write books, give speeches about federalism about the tenth amendment, about separation of powers, against centralization, against what congress is doing and then you say okay, lets go to Article Five Convention know we can do that because well have a Runaway Convention which is an impossibility. I cant even imagine a way in which it would ever runaway sense of 38 state legislators have to ratify. Now, i have thrown in a number of proposals, others have thrown in proposals, and that is good and these things need to be debated but people need to understand that the constitution does provide a way for reigning in the Central Government and reigning in the bureaucracy, reining in the courts and this is why the progressives read the editorials, run the newspapers, who do the tv shows, and i include a lot of republicans among them that they reject this. It takes power away from them and actually puts it through the republican system. Host i think the time has come, mark, its almost irresponsible now, i believe, for americans, for politicians at the state level to believe that the status quo is going to work for the country. The good news is, i think, you have 90 of americans virtually lost confidence in congress. But they needed to know some of the things youre talking about here. I dont see this so much as a political process but there is a connection to what you talk about here of americanism, the decentralization of power, moving decisionmaking back to the people like you say in here its not a silly what is decided but who decides, who decides how you live and it gets back to the negative and positive liberty argument because what you are talking about with the convention of the states you would put under the negative liberty category in the sense that its telling the federal government clearly what it cannot do. They cannot increase the debt or raise taxes and it cannot expand its authority in the states and again, the idea that we will have a Runaway Convention that takes away our rights is within the subject matter of the call and frankly, at this point, i feel a whole lot more secure in this process and i feel like it needs to happen relatively quickly. Guest the bottom line for me is this. We need to make the case for americanism. You know, the constitution is the governing manifestation of the declaration. Either people believed in their own unalienable rights, either people believe they were born with these unalienable rights, either people believe in these eternal truths or does it matter whether they believe it comes from universal law but either you believe that as a human being, the parts of government, apart from bureaucracy, part tv, part of hollywood as certain available rights that come from a power more than man, him or himself or they dont. Americanism is about yes, we do. Let me give you an example. Right from wrong, good from evil, golden rule, the ten commandments, the eternal truths that are the ten commandments. You can believe them in topeka, kansas and somehow you know thats right or paris, france. How do you know . How is it that a person in paris, a reasonable person in paris, france and topeka, kansas, know the same thing how do they know right from wrong how do they know the golden rule . Forget about the title of the ten commandments. Youre not to kill people or commit adultery but how do people know that is right and that is wrong not because someone passes a law but is written on their hearts. Aristotle calls this universal law, as opposed to particular lot. Cicero talked about it, and he lost his life. He was killed as a result of it. Many of these men, city, most people never heard of before was hugely influential on the founders, he was killed, locke feared for his life. All of these men who wrote about all of these things facing one form of tyranny or another. That is the people with the founders relied on and that is the stuff that is not taught in our schools anymore. Host the things youre talking about are essentially americans that are foundational and when you talk about moral order, natural law, virtue, right and wrong, the golden rule, all of this has been bundled into this religious idea and separated from the operation of government which, as we know, was not what was intended but thats how weve lost virtue is that we no longer allow to talk about that in the context of the public sector. Guest i made the point in my first, liberty and tyranny, the framers of the constitution were religious men. I dont mean zealots in any way but they were all religious men. I looked at all of their backgrounds and they talk about jefferson was a deist he was still religious. Im not aware of any atheist but it doesnt matter. It is irrelevant. The constitution doesnt mention any specific religion. The constitution doesnt even mention god. The reason why we are such a Talent Society and the reason why you look in the First Amendment about not establishing a religion like they do in the middle east and other places of the world is because the men who met in philadelphia believed in the judeochristian set of values and they did not want to create a theocracy and they do not want to impose their views on people. They created a tolerant society. Now, what i say to people as you dont have to be religious, you dont have to believe in anything but you get the benefit from the society regardless because of what was created. And that is okay. There are people who said to me very interesting question the declaration, laws of nature, natures god, but what if i am an atheist and i believe a natural law. Yes, you can. We can evidently work comes from but you can believe in eternal truths and you can believe in a moral order that exist no matter what. And interns of what kind of society unfortunately those decisions are often made by debates so we cannot leave the battle of ideas to the intellectuals and the academics so the point is learn as much as you can about america and antiamericanism or progressivisms you can tell your neighbors and friends we can solve educate the nation we will not get it through college or media. Despite that we still have half of americans continue to vote of the side there is still the yearning inside i appreciate stopping by