I did some searching on the internet and the accusations are out there, along with scary things like a runaway Convention etc. It would take far to much time needlessly, to list the wild claims let alone debunk them one by one. So let's look at the question in a different way. Let's use some Critical thinking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking and analyze the question and its premises, looking for contradictions and logical conclusions.
Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.
And in imitation of a recently devised Twitter hashtag, #WWOD (What would Obama do?) I will make use of this hashtag just for this occasion, #WWGSD.
George Soros is an ultra rich progressive liberal and all around unsavory character. Check him out here George Soros>http://keywiki.org/George_Soros
GEORGE SOROS >http://discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=977
What Soros would want are changes that make it possible for his socialist ideas to come to fruition. He has plenty of company also, including the liberals in Washington DC.
Now let's look at the Article V movement. Mark Levin published a book in 2013 title “The Liberty Amendments”, of which the first chapter is free here: >http://citadelcc.vo.llnwd.net/o29/network/Levin/hosted_files/LibertyAmendmentsCh1.pdf
The rest of the book lists the amendments Levin offers as a starting point, some idea as what can be done and why. Here is a list of the 11 offered. Note that most articles reviewing the book list 10 amendments, but there are 11. That would seem to indicate they did not actually read the book closely. There are 10 chapters of amendments, but chapter 5 has two amendments in it. This listing is directly from the book, however here is an article on the book.
Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendments>http://www.redstate.com/2013/08/13/mark-levins-liberty-amendments/
Chapter One: Restoring the American Republic
#WWGSD?: This is not an amendment chapter, but George Soros would not be in favor of this concept. Like Obama, he want to break down America and replace it with a socialist government.
Chapter Two: An Amendment to Establish Term Limits for Members of Congress
#WWGSD? This amendment would serve to break at least some of the bonds of crony-capitalism, K-Street lobbying money and connections, lifers such as Dick Lugar, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, etc. Sure, Dick Lugar was defeated in the primary, but that is a rarity. Incumbents win the seats back over 90% of the time. And when Dick Lugar lost in the primary, he was bitter and refused to support his successor, an actual conservative. If we had term limits, the bitterness would not be directed at a successor but probably against the citizens of the state for the term limits. And yes, I believe he was bitter toward the state as well.
Analysis: George Soros would be heavily against this amendment.
Chapter Three: An Amendment to Restore the Senate
#WWGSD? This amendment would repeal the 17th amendment, thus reverting the Constitution back to its origin on the election of senators. The power would be returned to the states as intended and the positions would be far less susceptible to the whims of the day.
Analysis: George Soros would definitely not like power returned to the states and would be against this amendment.
Chapter Four: An Amendment to Establish Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices and Super-Majority Legislative Override
#WWGSD? Like amendment one, this one would serve to freshen the Court with Judges that may follow the Constitution more closely, realizing that they are not in for life and will have to live with the people after their term. Also, this amendment gives power to the States to override the court, essentially giving the States veto power.
Analysis: George Soros would not favor this amendment as his socialist ideas are counter to the Constitution, and possible rule by the courts over the other two branches.
Chapter Five: Two Amendments to Limit Federal Spending and Taxing
#WWGSD? These two amendments directly affect the power of the federal government over the people and their money, which they use to fund their big government projects and the like. The ability to spend and the ability to take that money would both be restricted. This amendment greatly curtails big government and therefore liberal socialist plans as well. A return to a true capitalist society world likely result.
Analysis: This amendment would restrict the centering of wealth with billionaires, lobbyists, etc. so George Soros would be shut out along with other crony-capitalists. He would not favor these two either.
Chapter Six: An Amendment to Limit the Federal Bureaucracy
#WWGSD? Reducing the unelected part of the government, such as the EPA, and so many others would also reduce lobbying and crony-capitalism by making a greater percentage of the government directly reportable to the voters.
Analysis: George Soros has nothing to like here. Move on.
Chapter Seven: An Amendment to Promote Free Enterprise
#WWGSD? Free Enterprise is the bane of big corporations and billionaires. It is competition as it should be.
Analysis: George Soros opts out again
Chapter Eight: An Amendment to Protect Private Property
#WWGSD? Yet another amendment that goes counter to Statist intentions, bureaucracy, and the crony-capitalists. The EPA abd Department of Interior will not like this.
Analysis: And George Soros doesn't like it either. It is death to Agenda 21.
Chapter Nine: An Amendment to Grant the States Authority to Directly Amend the Constitution
#WWGSD? Wow. Now this amendment really will irk the Statists and big government. This is a direct line to choking off the power of the Statists.
Analysis: George Soros fights this like mad. All his money could not stop the changes made against his plans.
Chapter Ten: An Amendment to Grant the States Authority to Check Congress
#WWGSD? Nice. Congress is now rated at less than 10% popularity. And they deserve it. This gives the people and the States the power to corral them when they go astray.
Analysis: Soros loses out again on attempts to lobby and feed his fellow crony-capitalists.
Chapter Eleven: An Amendment to Protect the Vote
#WWGSD? And finally, make sure the vote recorded is actually what they people spoke at the polls and the right people voted.
Analysis: Finally, the dead in Chicago can't vote. George Soros loses again.
The Constitution itself has been noted to be a document that limits the Federal Government, and does not limit the people. It is all about restrictions on the government to prevent it from becoming a tyranny. And all of these proposed amendments do the same thing; they limit the government.
Now that summarizes the amendments in Mark Levin's book and those of the Conservatives generally.
Next, let's cover the claim is that George Soros is funding the Article V movement and the implication is that he controls it and the amendments above. Where in the world does that come from? Well, that comes from improper association of the one amendment that George Soros and the progressives are behind.
Never fear though, they haven't got a chance that it will be ratified. And if the country goes so far down that it could, they would lose interest anyway. The reason for that would be that by executive orders and other means, they have already gotten their goals.
That amendment is here:
Posted by Aaron Wysocki 1175pc on October 19, 2011
"Corporations are not people. They have none of the Constitutional rights of human beings. Corporations are not allowed to give money to any politician, directly or indirectly. No politician can raise over $100 from any person or entity. All elections must be publicly financed."
*Note: The finished legislation will be worded differently and have to account for inflation, etc. This is simply to point the legislators in the right direction and make sure the final amendment accomplishes the goals we have outlined here. >http://www.wolf-pac.com/28th
The same or nearly the same amendment is supported by other liberal groups, and is based on opposition to the Supreme Court decision that corporations, businesses, groups of patriots, and the like can band together to support their beliefs. In their mind, corporations are not people. That is akin to saying families, churches, tea party groups, political parties, married couples, etc. are not people. If you just take all the people out of any group, then see if that group effectively exists at all. It does not.
So thinking this amendment over, these conclusions can be made:
* They arrogantly name it the 28th amendment. However, the next amendment ratified regardless of content will be the 28th amendment.
* This amendment would effectively negate the first amendment.
* The Constitution and Bill of Rights are limitations on government. This amendment WolfPac proposes is a limitation on the People and the States.
Analysis: George Soros is all for this nutty idea. Personally, he is a billionaire, and could donate all he wants effectively negating millions of small donors. Those donors could donate themselves or band together and combined efforts could negate Soros. But not if this amendment happened.
The real deception is attempting to link Soros to the conservative Article V movement to restore the Republic. There is no truth to that claim and it is just fear mongering. The soruce of these claims come from just a few select groups that have been doing it for decades. They have been doing it so long, that to change in light of the facts would probably destroy what little credibility they have. They would have to delete scores of articles on their websites and trash piles of printed articles and stacks of DVD's. Don't expect them to change.
It is ironic that the original fear mongering sources were the progressives. Robert F Kennedy and others railed against Article V conventions to Amend.
See notes here:
The runaway convention scenario was conjured up in the 19th century to dissuade state lawmakers from bypassing Congress through the state application and convention process. The scenario became famous during the 1960s, when liberal activists, legislators, and academics raised it to defeat an application campaign for amendments that would have overturned some Supreme Court decisions. Various groups have employed the same tactic to defeat balanced budget amendment proposals over the years.14 In one of the ironies of history, some deeply conservative groups now promote the scenario as well. One can expect both liberal and conservative opponents to promote it again if another application campaign begins to gain traction.
http://www.alec.org/docs/ArticleVHandbook.pdf Page 19
And the footnote 14 is here:
14 Notable among those publicizing the scenario were Yale’s Charles Black and Harvard’s Lawrence Tribe; Supreme Court Justices Warren Burger and Arthur Goldberg; Senators Joseph Tidings (D.-Md.) and Robert F. Kennedy (D.-N.Y); and individuals within the “Kennedy circle,” such as Goldberg and speechwriter Theodore Sorensen.
http://www.alec.org/docs/ArticleVHandbook.pdf Page 40
Also, the DailyKos, a progressive blog, has been adamantly against the Article V convention to Amend since they are aware it is a move to restore the Constitution and downsize their socialist big government actions. They include all the standard false arguments that other groups use, probably because R F Kennedy and others originated them.
ALEC on Article V Conventions>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/12/1097380/-ALEC-on-Article-V-Conventions
Alert: Art. V Convention Threat Grows: Dec 7, 2013 Assembly>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/04/1260066/-Alert-Art-V-Convention-Threat-Grows-Dec-7-2013-Assembly
The end conclusion is that believing George Soros and the progressives want Article V conventions to Amend is just nutty; they were the original sources for the fear mongering it the first place and continue to spread the nonsense. Don't buy it. And can you trust them or other groups spreading the nonsense? NO.
Critical thinking has been defined as:
"the process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information to reach an answer or conclusion"
"disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence"
"reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do"
"purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgement is based"
"includes a commitment to using reason in the formulation of our beliefs">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking