The Predicate to The Liberty Amendments

 

The despair was palpable as the election results came in last year, seemingly confirming for many our worst fear, namely that the preponderance of our countrymen wished to be relieved of responsibility for their own existence. Conditioned in many cases by government schools that inculcated the supposed virtue of the collective over the individual, these people grew to become reliable subjects of the nanny state, preferring the wretched dependence of Obama’s “Julia,” to the muscular liberty and sovereignty of their forefathers.

I, for one, had resolved to stop handing anything to the myriad panhandlers that frequent truck stops other than a slip of paper on which I had written the phone number to the White House switchboard. If Barack Obama wanted to play Santa Claus with my earnings, I reasoned, let him take the phone calls of his huddled dependents, yearning to breathe in the spoils of other people’s labor.

The election seemed a horrible vindication of Benjamin Franklin’s warning that, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” From the Oval Office to Congress, from the Supreme Court to a profusion of administrative agencies and czars, the American people do not suffer from a shortage of would-be masters. Rather, it seems our’s is a dearth not only of humble public servants, but of citizens willing to embrace their heritage and boldly assert the unalienable rights that generations of patriots fought and died to preserve.

As Mark Levin notes in his latest work, The Liberty Amendments, it would be foolhardy to restrict our efforts to convincing the nominal opposition party to exert vigorous opposition. Indeed, aside from meaningless token votes in the House of Representatives, when a congressional Republican actually proposes substantive defiance to the ever-expanding state, he is more likely to receive a whack on the head from Karl Rove’s little white board or a rebuke from Bobbsey Twin Senators McCain and Graham than an endorsement from his own leadership. What we are witnessing is a disturbing and seemingly unstoppable coalescence of both major parties into an amalgamation of autocrats, ambitious to maintain their own power and anxious to relieve us of our property and liberty.

Meanwhile, a sense of buyer’s remorse appears to be growing as America emasculates itself, with our economy stuck in neutral at home, and our enemies emboldened by our own timidity and confusion abroad. Businesses from IBM to DuPont and Caterpillar move people off of company-provided health insurance plans as premiums surge upward (President Obama’s promises notwithstanding). Elsewhere, local governments, universities, and smaller businesses alike are reducing employee work hours (and earnings) to avoid the crushing costs of the Orwellian-named Affordable Care Act’s requirements. In an unfortunate reversal of historical trends, where six full-time jobs were created for every one part-time job last year, one full-time job is being created for every four part-time jobs thus far in 2013.

From economic stagnation to a growing list of humiliations on the world stage, Barack Obama’s ability to exploit the immunities of the Limbaugh Theorem (wherein he separates himself from his own governance) appear to be diminishing. According to Gallup, the President’s approval rating is suffering. After touring the country in support of his economic ideas over the summer, his approval on economic matters dropped from 42 percent down to 35 percent. Approval of his foreign policy collapsed from 52 percent in December down to 41 percent at the end of last month. Meanwhile, Gallup finds that only 36 percent of Americans support his proposed Syrian adventure, the lowest support for any military action recorded in the last 20 years, which may be less of a reflection of our supposed “war-weariness,” than a distrust of half-measures destined to failure under the leadership of man who disavows his own policies and ultimatums. If change is predicated on disillusion, the time would appear ripe. 

There is a growing sense that the moment may soon arrive when the collateral damage of liberalism will become so obviously insurmountable for all but the most die-hard fans of centralized authority, that many will become receptive to an alternative. The laws of economics are ultimately no more flexible than the law of gravity after all, as that bastion of liberalism and unionism, Detroit, is demonstrating. From this perspective, the timing of Levin’s sterling effort couldn’t be better. 

Highlighting a method for redress which the Framers themselves included in the Constitution for precisely the time when the federal government might become incapable of reforming itself, Levin cites the means by which the states themselves can call for a limited convention for the sole purpose of proposing amendments, bypassing Washington DC altogether.

marklevin_reaganlibrary_libertyamendments.jpgLast evening, at the Reagan Library, Levin was asked to pick which amendment, out of the eleven he has proposed, he would select if he could save only one. Interestingly, he selected the amendment in which states would be able to directly amend the Constitution by a two thirds vote.

I figure if the Supreme Court can amend it by one Justice, and if the President can amend it by refusing to comply with the law, and if Congress can amend it by writing Obamacare, then what the hell. Two thirds of the states, and that’s pretty tough to get, should be able to amend it directly.

Where Barack Obama sought to “fundamentally transform” America into something the Founders risked everything to escape, Mark Levin seeks nothing less (or more) than the fundamental restoration of a great republic. From term limits on Congress and the Supreme Court to an amendment to limit the growth and reach of the administrative branch of government (which issued some 3,000 new regulations just last year), and an amendment to allow states to directly amend the Constitution, Levin proposes a total of eleven amendments geared toward reining in a runaway bureaucracy that has become unmoored from its constitutional foundation and openly mocks citizens with the temerity to challenge its incursions into their private lives.

Noting that his proposed amendments are by no means chiseled in stone, Levin was careful to make two important observations last night. First, his immediate goal is to start a grass roots conversation among the good people of this country that could spread to the state legislatures themselves, gaining momentum as citizens again realize that the country belongs to them, not to state functionaries. Second, while conservatives are perfectly capable of working at the federal level, which is to say electing the most conservative candidates possible to federal office, they would be well advised to simultaneously pursue the method that the Framers provided in Article V of the Constitution to address a ruling class that consistently and arrogantly governs against the will of the people.

Forever fearful of almost everything generally, and specifically terrified of being labeled as the, “party of no,” some on our side tend to look at the Democrats’ sprint to the left and offer as their alternative the idea that we should instead walk sensibly in the same direction, while chastising the rest of us to come up with a better idea. Having studied the text of the Constitution, along with the background and even the correspondence of the Framers, Mark Levin has offered a provocative and compelling alternative that deserves a careful reading and consideration.

— If you wish to join the conversation on this post, we invite you to become a Ricochet Member. Enjoy great content and podcasts, post your own opinions, converse with leading figures on the Right, and much more. Ricochet – The Right People. The Right Tone. The Right Place. —

There are 51 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  1. ST Inactive
    ST

    So let it be written. So let it be done.

    • #1
    • September 9, 2013, at 1:31 AM PDT
    • Like
  2. Steve MacDonald Inactive

    When one reaches the point (as I have) where one can place zero credibility with what the Govt. says – One way or another something has to give.I have reached the point where, if an a Govt. official said it was a sunny day, I would check the window and the short term forecast.Really, how often does someone have to lie t you before you cease to believe?

    When zero faith is “achieved,” you basically have three options: 1. Secession. 2. What Mark recommends. 3. What is to come. “interesting times.”

    • #2
    • September 9, 2013, at 2:44 AM PDT
    • Like
  3. BrentB67 Inactive
    Dave Carter: Larry, I think it’s true that if the American people don’t want to be free, then they won’t be free….

    51%+ of Americans don’t want to be free. Freedom requires personal responsibility and self sufficiency.

    We keep acting like POTUS and Congress ignore the Constitution against the will of the people. They very much have the will of the people in the 80%+ incumbent re-election rate and the fact that Obama has never lost an election for a federal level position (please get our heads around this).

    51%+ don’t want freedom. They want a life free of consequences, far from God, subsidized by the 49%- that do respect the obligations of self sufficiency and personal responsibility.

    If we don’t care about the Constitution now, we aren’t going to care about 11 or 100 more amendments.

    I also agree with Larry – be very careful what we wish for. Amending the Constitution from the states or Constitutional convention hasn’t been tried before. We are in the minority right now, we could end up getting Christianity amended out of out the nation, capital confiscation, 2nd Amendment repealed, etc.

    • #3
    • September 9, 2013, at 4:23 AM PDT
    • Like
  4. Dave Carter Contributor
    Dave Carter Post author

    Good morning Brent! I’ve got to get behind the wheel in a minute, but I wanted to ask a question and pass along a thought:

    Re: 51% of Americans not wanting to be free. Do you have a source for that or are you relying on the e2012 election results? I ask because my initial reaction was much the same as yours. Subsequent info reveals that a significant number of our base sat at home rather than vote for Mitt Romney. Additionally, only a certain percentage of Americans vote in any event, so I’m inclined (out of desperation perhaps) to be skeptical of your 51% assertion unless you have a compelling source. 

    Lastly, Christianity is already under attack, capital is already being confiscated, and the 2nd Amendment is already threatened. Seems to me that times are desperate, so if you have a better idea I’m certainly happy to hear it. But remember please, a limited convention for amending only,…with amendments requiring a three-fourths ratification by the states stands almost no chance of becoming a runaway convention which, practically speaking, we already have every day the Court is in session.

    • #4
    • September 9, 2013, at 5:13 AM PDT
    • Like
  5. George Savage Contributor
    BrentB67

    51%+ of Americans don’t want to be free. Freedom requires personal responsibility and self sufficiency.

    Brent, I respectfully disagree. A bare majority vote for statism on occasion; ironically enough, often at times of great economic stress precipitated or worsened by prior left-liberal interventions. Once in power, leftists work assiduously to insulate the latest collectivist policies from any reversal by future voters (cf., Obamacare, Dodd Frank).

    Much of constitutional jurisprudence today is based upon the accretive nature of Supreme Court precedent. New amendments would scrape the barnacles off the document, requiring a fresh interpretation in light of the just-enacted amendments.

    And, sad to say, Christianity is already being de facto amended out of our Constitution. Consider, as just the latest example, the case of Senior Master Sergeant Philip Monk. We can either fight back using, among other tactics, the Article V process that Levin lays out, surrender, or leave. I am for fighting.

    • #5
    • September 9, 2013, at 5:24 AM PDT
    • Like
  6. D.C. McAllister Inactive
    George Savage: Many will scoff at our arguments, and also our prospects for constitutional renewal. Let them. Consistency will out. Few would have predicted even a decade ago that a far-left liberal community organizer could become president of the United States running on a promise of “fundamental transformation.” Yet look where we are.

    This is excellent address. Keep your eye on the ball. If it doesn’t work, it won’t be because we didn’t try.

    Thank you, Dave, for the wonderful post, expressed intelligently and passionately as only you can do.

    • #6
    • September 9, 2013, at 5:30 AM PDT
    • Like
  7. Duane Oyen Member

    Mark Levin has some good ideas, but he operates pretty much as Rush Limbaugh does- he plays to the faithful to get ratings for his radio show, not as a serious apostle trying to make substantive beneficial changes out in the world. In the same way FreedomWorks trolls for donations by going after Karl Rove or saying in radio spots “Tell Mitch McConnell to investigate the IRS”, as though the Senate Minority Leader had the power to do such things, Levin tosses off this throwaway line as though it has not been true since John Jay: “I figure if the Supreme Court can amend it by one Justice…..”

    Surprise- for over 200 years, the swing voter has had the power to drive decisions. If you don’t know that, go back and study the political debates surrounding the Declaration.

    If you want to restore freedom in this country, you cut off the power of the administrative state, the unelected bureaucrats who now control our lives. The amendment that we need is for one House of Congress to be able to kill any Federal Register regulation by simple majority vote.

    That one change would accomplish the most to restore freedom.

    • #7
    • September 9, 2013, at 5:35 AM PDT
    • Like
  8. D.C. McAllister Inactive

    As to the discussion about freedom, I would like to also posit that human beings are created to be free. That is their innermost desire. The problem is they forget it, they are lured into behavior that robs them of it, and they become mentally enslaved through entertainment and malaise. They don’t willfully and knowingly give up their freedom. When people (except the minority of conscience-seared abusers of power) are shown that they can live a more free and happy life, even when it means taking responsibility for their own actions and relying on themselves, for the most part, they respond positively. They are just not being shown the way or given the opportunity as much now. What Mark has proposed will open paths that they will want to walk down. I believe that. I think the problem with many in America today isn’t that they don’t want to be free. They do. They just either don’t know how—they’re lost—or they feel hopeless. We can show them the way and give them hope. This is one way to do it. Also, sometimes God works through political events to bring about great awakenings.

    • #8
    • September 9, 2013, at 5:38 AM PDT
    • Like
  9. D.C. McAllister Inactive
    Duane Oyen: Mark Levin has some good ideas, but he operates pretty much as Rush Limbaugh does- he plays to the faithful to get ratings for his radio show, not as a serious apostle trying to make substantive beneficial changes out in the world.

    I disagree with this wholeheartedly. Mark has worked for too many years behind the scenes for this comment even to be remotely true. He is a serious-minded attorney, with a serious foundation that does meaningful work (just consider the IRS scandal and Landmark Legal’s involvement in it). He is a man who looks for solutions. Does he have a radio program? Yes, but this is not his main work. He’s not a simple entertainer. His experience and history stand in opposition to that. His work through Landmark Legal Foundation does as well. Also the seriousness of the book does too. I think he deserves more respect than this comment. I would encourage you to examine more fully all that Mark is and has been involved in. I think your perception and conclusions will change significantly.

    • #9
    • September 9, 2013, at 5:43 AM PDT
    • Like
  10. BrentB67 Inactive

    Dave – drive safe out there with your guard up – you are among the best on the road and the rest are ready to kill you while they eat bagels.

    I am basing my statement on a couple of things. The results of the last 2 POTUS elections and the fact that a majority of the opposition party i.e. republicans believe we can not live without an entitlement/welfare state.

    I believe your stats about the conservative base, but even if they had shown up and changed the outcome of the election they were still voting for a progressive attempt to construct a utopian country where we are free of the burden of personal responsibility. The only difference is that the new regime would grow the entitlement welfare state more slowly.

    The only proactive way I know to change the course is for republicans in the house to unite and refuse to raise the debt ceiling and zero out the funding for the welfare state.

    The best thing that happened is the sequester because it rattled a few folks that our country didn’t end. Example: Do not fund SNAP and see if anyone goes hungry.

    • #10
    • September 9, 2013, at 5:50 AM PDT
    • Like
  11. BrentB67 Inactive

    George, what party or person has stepped forward to raise the issue of individual responsibility and a nation free of welfare, transfer payments, tax gimmicks, etc.? Mitt Romney for all his outstanding business acumen never proposed such a thing.

    • #11
    • September 9, 2013, at 5:53 AM PDT
    • Like
  12. BrentB67 Inactive

    DC – very profound words in 16. I disagree with the order of events. You can’t have grassroots bottom up change until you have a foundation. Levin’s solutions propose that people are going to change the problems that those same people created as you highlight in the first portion of that most prescient comment.

    • #12
    • September 9, 2013, at 5:56 AM PDT
    • Like
  13. Nick Stuart Inactive

    Michael Farris (founder Home School Legal Defense Association and Patrick Henry College) is for it. Hard to argue with anything Farris supports, although it can’t happen soon, and may not happen soon enough.

    As Mark Steyn has said, something to the effect “sooner or later keeping 50 stars in the flag isn’t worth it.”

    Sooner or later something has to give way.

    • #13
    • September 9, 2013, at 5:59 AM PDT
    • Like
  14. BrentB67 Inactive

    Dave, DC, and George: Perhaps I could’ve worded my comment(s) better.

    Do people, specifically Americans, want to be free? I think the answer is affirmative. Do Americans want the responsibility that goes along with that freedom to secure it for ourselves and our posterity? No Way! not even close.

    Outside of a handful of rabble rousers like me and some of the folks on Ricochet (and we are in the minority even here I think) there isn’t anyone, anywhere, standing on the absolute idea that true freedom is based in God, guns, and private property and the only way to ensure that is the elimination of every shred, portion, set aside, credit etc. of the federal welfare leviathan.

    • #14
    • September 9, 2013, at 6:01 AM PDT
    • Like
  15. D.C. McAllister Inactive
    BrentB67: DC – very profound words in 16. I disagree with the order of events. You can’t have grassroots bottom up change until you have a foundation. Levin’s solutions propose that people are going to change the problems that those same people created as you highlight in the first portion of that most prescient comment.

    I would disagree about the “same people.” Many people are uninvolved in the process, and many people actually didn’t participate in the problems we have today. They’ve fighting against it for years. And some of those “same people” who did cause these problems can change (I do believe that). 

    As for the bottom-up change, it doesn’t always happen that way. God practically dragged the Israelites out of Egypt, and when things got tough in the desert, they wanted to go back to the comforts of their slavery under the Pharaoh. Moses pressed them on. He forced them to look up from their Golden Calf into the tablets of God’s Law. They didn’t want to. The grass-roots wasn’t there, but God brought about change because of a single, faithful leader (and even he wasn’t perfect).

    • #15
    • September 9, 2013, at 6:04 AM PDT
    • Like
  16. Larry3435 Member

    Amend the Constitution in Obama’s America and you will get the European Constitution (yuck). And even if you did get something decent, the Courts wouldn’t enforce it. There is no substitute for a populace that cares about freedom.

    • #16
    • September 9, 2013, at 6:20 AM PDT
    • Like
  17. Dave Carter Contributor
    Dave Carter Post author

    Larry, I think it’s true that if the American people don’t want to be free, then they won’t be free. But as things stand now, there is a standing Constitutional Convention every time the Supreme Court convenes, every time Congress meets, and every time the President comes in from the golf course. Perhaps it’s time the states got involved again, yes? I would also note that one of Levin’s proposed amendments would allow the states to over ride Comgress and the Supreme Court, decentralizing power away from what the Court can and cannot enforce. Ultimately of course, you are right that the decision rests with the people. At least a method is being proposed that is consistent with the Constitution.

    • #17
    • September 9, 2013, at 6:38 AM PDT
    • Like
  18. George Savage Contributor

    Duane, I disagree with your focus (at comment 15) on appealing to the swing voter. Motivated partisans are the ones who fight for the commanding heights of public opinion, creating a zeitgeist. The uncommitted follow.

    Reagan framed our 70s malaise as a moral issue: the federal government usurping our freedom. His policies worked and swing voters became Reagan supporters. But when Bill Clinton reframed the moral argument and the boom continued, well, the swing voters showed equal support for Clinton.

    Now, with statism failing, Obama remains largely successful in making the moral argument, blaming freedom. How can we counter this by appealing to swing voters rather than making our own moral argument?

    • #18
    • September 9, 2013, at 7:20 AM PDT
    • Like
  19. Duane Oyen Member
    D.C. McAllister
    Duane Oyen: Mark Levin has some good ideas, but ….. he plays to the faithful to get ratings for his radio show, not as a serious apostle trying to make substantive beneficial changes out in the world.

    I disagree with this wholeheartedly. Mark has worked for too many years behind the scenes for this comment even to be remotely true. He is a serious-minded attorney, with a serious foundation that does meaningful work (just consider the IRS scandal and Landmark Legal’s involvement in it). He is a man who looks for solutions. Does he have a radio program? Yes, but this is not his main work. ….. His work through Landmark Legal Foundation does as well. ……

    Edited 2 hours ago

    His prior work is not the issue here- it is what he is doing now, and that is primarily retailing counterproductive bombast.

    What he does now is a waste of money and time for the conservative cause, though it may be good for Mr. Levin and make many of us feel good. IFJ is three times as effective as Landmark has ever been, BTW.

    • #19
    • September 9, 2013, at 8:12 AM PDT
    • Like
  20. Duane Oyen Member
    George Savage: Duane, I disagree with your focus (at comment 15) on appealing to the swing voter. Motivated partisans are the ones who fight for the commanding heights of public opinion, creating a zeitgeist. The uncommitted follow.

    Reagan framed our 70s malaise as a moral issue: the federal government usurping our freedom. His policies worked and swing voters became Reagan supporters. But when Bill Clinton reframed the moral argument and the boom continued, well, the swing voters showed equal support for Clinton.

    Now, with statism failing, Obama remains largely successful in making the moral argument, blaming freedom. How can we counter this by appealing to swing voters rather than making our own moral argument? · 51 minutes ago

    George, I respectfully beg to disagree with your interpretation of my comment at 15. I did not say that we should appeal to the swing voter– what I said was that Levin’s implication regarding the Supreme Court is wrong– one justice changing the Constitution is nothing new. That problem has been around since the Declaration.

    How you fix the problem is a different issue, and I did give my own top (not the only one) priority amendment fix.

    • #20
    • September 9, 2013, at 8:21 AM PDT
    • Like
  21. raycon and lindacon Inactive

    Brent; Our answer to the problem Mark Levin addresses is already in our hands. It is the un-amended Constitution itself. Before the 17th amendment, the Senate contained the veto needed to stop the prog-left movement. Each state had as much power as any other. When the Senate changed, America’s future went into the hands of the most populous districts. The ability to over rule the progressives was forever lost, and the welfare state is the logical outcome.

    Some states are now leading the people in the effort to restore the Constitution. The National Republican Party might be a bunch of Quislings, but Scott Walker and other Republicans are not. The Tea Party matters there. That is where change begins.

    Mark’s solution will restore the veto power of each state. There will be 50 votes. Wyoming has the same voting power as New York. Kentucky has the same voting power as California. Therein lives the genius of Mark Levin. Without going over the top in this, Mark Levin can save this country.

    • #21
    • September 9, 2013, at 8:59 AM PDT
    • Like
  22. Z in MT Inactive

    Where Mark Levin, and George are correct is that the accretion of Federal power in all three branches is the root of the problem. Even Reagan did very little to fundamentally change this dynamic. Maybe, Levin’s plan for a limited Constitutional convention of the States could be the dynamic change needed. However it is also a high risk strategy which could just cement the Progressive project if it fails dramatically or gets twisted by the Progressives in the process. That being said, without some type of dramatic move the American public will just keep drifting further into the Progressive, socialist mindset.

    • #22
    • September 9, 2013, at 9:12 AM PDT
    • Like
  23. Steven Jones Inactive

    Anything which comes out of such a convention would need to be ratified by 2/3 of the states, according to Levin. This would serve as a brake on Left-wing proposals; while there are a number of Lefty statehouses, they’re nowhere near a majority.

    • #23
    • September 9, 2013, at 9:15 AM PDT
    • Like
  24. Profile Photo Member

    I think Levin’s idea is very worthy of pursuit. How else to better get the country on the right track? The current conventional “thinking” is not working. It will take time but something has to give.

    • #24
    • September 9, 2013, at 9:28 AM PDT
    • Like
  25. George Savage Contributor
    Duane Oyen

    George, I respectfully beg to disagree with your interpretation of my comment at 15. I did not say that we should appeal to the swing voter- what I said was thatLevin’s implicationregarding the Supreme Court iswrong- one justice changing the Constitution is nothing new. That problem has been around since the Declaration.

    How you fix the problem is a different issue, and I did give my own top (not the only one) priority amendment fix. · 1 hour ago

    Duane, many thanks for the clarification. And sorry to misinterpret you.

    I agree with your proposed amendment. Levin proposes something similar, calling for congressional approval of all significant economic regulations and the sunset of all federal agencies every three years.

    [Edited to fix typo]

    • #25
    • September 9, 2013, at 9:31 AM PDT
    • Like
  26. Profile Photo Member
    Duane Oyen: …………………………

    If you want to restore freedom in this country, you cut off the power of the administrative state, the unelected bureaucrats who now control our lives. The amendment that we need is forone House of Congressto be able tokill any Federal Register regulation by simple majority vote.

    That one change would accomplish the most to restore freedom. · 4 hours ago………….

    Amen, and it bears repeating. So I did.

    • #26
    • September 9, 2013, at 9:50 AM PDT
    • Like
  27. George Savage Contributor

    Amen, Dave. Beautifully presented, as always. 

    The liberals are always making systemic moral arguments, the better to see that no crisis goes to waste, as Rahm Emanuel candidly put it last time around. Consequently, when calamity strikes and an anxious electorate reaches for the zeitgeist, it is typically some rehash of the usual Marxist nostrums.

    We need to make the counter-argument. Today. Before calamity strikes. The piecemeal evisceration of the United States Constitution is the root cause of American decline, not private-sector greed, institutional racism, homophobia, uncontrollable global warming, or any other hobby horse of the left.

    Many will scoff at our arguments, and also our prospects for constitutional renewal. Let them. Consistency will out. Few would have predicted even a decade ago that a far-left liberal community organizer could become president of the United States running on a promise of “fundamental transformation.” Yet look where we are. 

    • #27
    • September 9, 2013, at 9:55 AM PDT
    • Like
  28. BrentB67 Inactive
    Derek Simmons
    Duane Oyen: …………………………

    If you want to restore freedom in this country, you cut off the power of the administrative state, the unelected bureaucrats who now control our lives. The amendment that we need is forone House of Congressto be able tokill any Federal Register regulation by simple majority vote.

    That one change would accomplish the most to restore freedom. · 4 hours ago………….

    Amen, and it bears repeating. So I did. · 4 minutes ago

    The balance of power follows the money. We allow too much to be confiscated by the federal government and allow them to borrow nearly unlimited funds from future generations.

    If we want to restore the balance of power, restore the balance of property. Cut taxes drastically and no more debt ceiling increases.

    • #28
    • September 9, 2013, at 9:59 AM PDT
    • Like
  29. Profile Photo Member

    I think the left understands the arguments but political correctness will not allow it. Ed Asner said that, in effect, criticizing Obama policies is in fact racism. That’s what we’re up against. I have no problem being called a racist if that’s what it takes to save the country. Liberty Amendments here we come.

    • #29
    • September 9, 2013, at 10:08 AM PDT
    • Like
  30. CuriousKevmo Member
    BrentB67: Do people, specifically Americans, want to be free? I think the answer is affirmative. Do Americans want the responsibility that goes along with that freedom to secure it for ourselves and our posterity? No Way! not even close.

    I think this is the key insight, the 51% don’t think they are voting to be less free….they don’t see the two as connected. I’m not sure what to do about it, but I think that is the reality.

    And, as others have stated, the opposition party seems afraid to stand on principle, they seem to think the desire for the welfare state is settled and we are now just arguing about the extent of it.

    • #30
    • September 9, 2013, at 11:14 AM PDT
    • Like
  1. 1
  2. 2