There are 459 comments.

1. Coolidge
   EHerring

   @EHerring

   7:20 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 9, 2022

   kedavis (View Comment):

   EHerring (View Comment):

   kedavis (View Comment):

   Steve Fast (View Comment):

   Barr didn’t say he approved of that; in fact, he said that he worked to develop effective tactics against Antifa/BLM rioters, but the implication was that it hadn’t been very successful. He also said that Antifa/BLM used much more effective tactics to cloak the identity of the law breakers and to prevent prosecution by claiming First Amendment protection.

   I think there were simply too many things going wrong in the DOJ and the nation for Barr to focus enough effort on a very difficult problem. Barr did a lot of good, but we need a series of strong AGs to right the ship.

   He said that lots of information COMES in – present tense – on right-wing groups, while very little information COMES in- present tense – on left-wing groups, and the result is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Where did you hear anything about him having even worked to try and change that? Right after that, he did some talking about Supreme Court cases, and that was the end of his interview.

   Just how more intrusive do you want the DOJ to become? Isn’t that what we want less of?

   Fine, then they should stop investigating and prosecuting conservative groups too. Don’t be one-sided.

   I am not one-sided. I don’t want to give the Dems more power than they have already assumed. Let states investigate and clean up. If multiple states find the same problem, let the feds investigate collusion to defraud us. If there is foreign interference, the. Let the feds handle it. 

2. Coolidge
   kedavis

   @kedavis

   7:34 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 9, 2022

   EHerring (View Comment):
   How much federal snooping do you want in our states during elections? …knowing the Dems like they do…they would abuse that, in fact they already do. 

   So the answer is to NOT look into election fraud?  How does that help?

3. Coolidge
   EHerring

   @EHerring

   7:45 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 9, 2022

   kedavis (View Comment):

   EHerring (View Comment):
   How much federal snooping do you want in our states during elections? …knowing the Dems like they do…they would abuse that, in fact they already do.

   So the answer is to NOT look into election fraud? How does that help?

   I didn’t say don’t look into election fraud. States are perfectly capable of doing that. I specifically addressed federal overreach. States run their elections per the Constitution. You also forget Barr would not have been able to get very far before he left office and Garland and gang would have tube it anyway. We are a year and a half later and how many convictions have taken place. You have unrealistic expectations. 

4. Coolidge
   kedavis

   @kedavis

   7:50 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 9, 2022

   EHerring (View Comment):

   kedavis (View Comment):

   EHerring (View Comment):
   How much federal snooping do you want in our states during elections? …knowing the Dems like they do…they would abuse that, in fact they already do.

   So the answer is to NOT look into election fraud? How does that help?

   I didn’t say don’t look into election fraud. States are perfectly capable of doing that. I specifically addressed federal overreach. States run their elections per the Constitution. You also forget Barr would not have been able to get very far before he left office and Garland and gang would have tube it anyway. We are a year and a half later and how many convictions have taken place. You have unrealistic expectations.

   Barr and others also tried to block state investigations, claiming they were federal purview and/or just claiming that the election couldn’t be questioned because that might cause people to question the election.

5. Coolidge
   EHerring

   @EHerring

   7:55 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 9, 2022

   kedavis (View Comment):

   EHerring (View Comment):

   kedavis (View Comment):

   EHerring (View Comment):
   How much federal snooping do you want in our states during elections? …knowing the Dems like they do…they would abuse that, in fact they already do.

   So the answer is to NOT look into election fraud? How does that help?

   I didn’t say don’t look into election fraud. States are perfectly capable of doing that. I specifically addressed federal overreach. States run their elections per the Constitution. You also forget Barr would not have been able to get very far before he left office and Garland and gang would have tube it anyway. We are a year and a half later and how many convictions have taken place. You have unrealistic expectations.

   Barr and others also tried to block state investigations, claiming they were federal purview and/or just claiming that the election couldn’t be questioned because that might cause people to question the election.

   Do you have a specific link to that?  I do t remember it quite like that and would like to see what I missed. 

6. Coolidge
   EHerring

   @EHerring

   7:58 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 9, 2022

   I listened to the podcast being made on Friday and ordered the book from Amazon after the podcast was over. Amazon delivered it today. Its “fulfillment centers” must be stocked. 

7. Contributor
   Peter Robinson

   @PeterRobinson

   8:09 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 9, 2022

   Concretevol (View Comment):

   In this and other interviews he strikes me as frank, unapologetic, and disinterested in whatever political fallout there may be. He compliments Trump where he feels appropriate and he criticizes him using the same standard….The man does not have an axe to grind and is not looking for another job so is probably one of the more credible voices out there in my opinion.

   Exactly!

8. Coolidge
   kedavis

   @kedavis

   8:11 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 9, 2022

   Peter Robinson (View Comment):

   Concretevol (View Comment):

   In this and other interviews he strikes me as frank, unapologetic, and disinterested in whatever political fallout there may be. He compliments Trump where he feels appropriate and he criticizes him using the same standard….The man does not have an axe to grind and is not looking for another job so is probably one of the more credible voices out there in my opinion.

   Exactly!

   Some counterpoint:

   https://ricochet.com/1216325/the-election-evidence-bill-barr-doesnt-want-you-to-see

9. Member
   Gary Robbins

   @GaryRobbins

   9:12 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 9, 2022

   kedavis (View Comment):

   Gary Robbins (View Comment):

   kedavis (View Comment):

   Gary Robbins (View Comment):

   I started out as a hostile listener, but Barr won me over. He was amazingly candid about both the strong and weak points of DJT. I appreciated Barr’s reverence for the Greatest President of the Twentieth Century. I am now more willing to hear Barr out about his concerns about the FBI, to my surprise, I am looking forward to reading his book. My overwhelming sense was that Barr is not to be eff’ed with.

   Did you miss the part where he admitted to not going after Antifa/BLM rioters because they were afraid of being called racist?

   That is not what I heard. What I heard was that Antifa members operate as a skilled paramilitary unit with tactics designed to not allow defendants to be identified.

   Start listening again at 53:10. He says it’s about “left” vs “right” but race is part of that too, of course. They don’t get information on groups like Antifa/BLM because they get “keel-hauled” for doing it. By the media, etc.

   Yep, you’re right also.

10. Member
    Gary Robbins

    @GaryRobbins

    9:16 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 9, 2022

    OldPhil (View Comment):

    I haven’t listened to this because I listen to very few podcasts, but I did see Barr on Greg Gutfeld’s show this week. When they asked him about Trump and 2024, he said he assumed that Trump would run again, and when Greg asked if he would support him as the nominee, Barr said “of course.”

    There have been two answers he has made in interviews.  First, Barr would oppose Trump in the primaries because Trump is unfit.  Second, if Trump got the nomination, Barr would vote for Trump as Democrats are even more unfit.

    I think that this would also be McConnell’s viewpoint, even though he won’t stress the first point.

11. Member
    Gary Robbins

    @GaryRobbins

    9:17 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 9, 2022

    Concretevol (View Comment):

    I don’t understand any of the criticism of what Barr said. In this and other interviews he strikes me as frank, unapologetic, and disinterested in whatever political fallout there may be. He compliments Trump where he feels appropriate and he criticizes him using the same standard. I know there are many who will tolerate zero dissent from the Dear Leader but perhaps someone who was there, worked with Trump and was on his side through all this possibly knows more about it than you (or some random schmuck on youtube) does. The man does not have an axe to grind and is not looking for another job so is probably one of the more credible voices out there in my opinion.

    His explanation of the antifa and BLM riot prosecutions makes perfect sense. They many times wore masks, were throwing rocks through windows, acted at night, etc….. The Jan 6th rioters were in a super camera heavy environment, did not disguise themselves, and were in broad daylight. He also pointed out that there were many arrests and prosecutions (depending on local prosecutors in some cases) but that an eventual conviction of arson or vandalism was not usually followed up on or did not make the news.

    Great interview, thanks guys.

    I agree on all points.  I am now persuaded to read Barr’s book.

12. Coolidge
    kedavis

    @kedavis

    9:45 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 9, 2022

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    OldPhil (View Comment):

    I haven’t listened to this because I listen to very few podcasts, but I did see Barr on Greg Gutfeld’s show this week. When they asked him about Trump and 2024, he said he assumed that Trump would run again, and when Greg asked if he would support him as the nominee, Barr said “of course.”

    There have been two answers he has made in interviews. First, Barr would oppose Trump in the primaries because Trump is unfit. Second, if Trump got the nomination, Barr would vote for Trump as Democrats are even more unfit.

    I think that this would also be McConnell’s viewpoint, even though he won’t stress the first point.

    In this area, Barr seems like a better example for you to follow.

13. Member
    JennaStocker

    @JennaStocker

    10:14 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 9, 2022

    I always listen because I think it’s valuable to hear what I agree with and what I don’t – because it often forces me to be uncomfortable with my previous assumptions or helps me better articulate those things I know in my heart and mind to be unshakable truths. It’s in part because of the hosts, the guests, and the thoughtful post-show comments of fellow listeners that is both entertaining and enlightening, and even a bit uncomfortable. Thank you for letting me in on it today, and on this site everyday.

14. Inactive
    Vince Guerra

    @VinceGuerra

    10:35 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 9, 2022

    Peter Robinson (View Comment):

    Concretevol (View Comment):

    In this and other interviews he strikes me as frank, unapologetic, and disinterested in whatever political fallout there may be. He compliments Trump where he feels appropriate and he criticizes him using the same standard….The man does not have an axe to grind and is not looking for another job so is probably one of the more credible voices out there in my opinion.

    Exactly!

    More credible than Jenna Ellis, Kash Patel, Garrett Zeigler, Rudy Giuliani, or any of the other members of Trump’s administration who’ve been saying for two years that Trump was stabbed in the front, back, and sides by the long-term Washington/White House establishment, including Barr.

    The man is part of the swamp, and he’s just trying to sell books and redeem his reputation. You really don’t have any idea how badly Bill Barr is hated among conservatives, do you Peter? Are you that disconnected from the base? 

15. Coolidge
    kedavis

    @kedavis

    10:53 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 9, 2022

    JennaStocker (View Comment):

    I always listen because I think it’s valuable to hear what I agree with and what I don’t – because it often forces me to be uncomfortable with my previous assumptions or helps me better articulate those things I know in my heart and mind to be unshakable truths. It’s in part because of the hosts, the guests, and the thoughtful post-show comments of fellow listeners that is both entertaining and enlightening, and even a bit uncomfortable. Thank you for letting me in on it today, and on this site everyday.

    I guess I would prefer something like the Monty Python bit.

    “In addition, as he’s going to be teaching politics, I’ve told him he’s welcome to teach any of the great socialist thinkers, provided he makes it clear that they were wrong.”

    Ricochet Podcast doesn’t do that.  I mean, the making clear when their guests are wrong.

16. Inactive
    Vince Guerra

    @VinceGuerra

    11:22 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 9, 2022

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):
    based on political differences?

    That’s what you got out of that?

    I do use exaggeration for humorous purposes. I hear it was popular among the Greeks.

    The exaggeration is welcome, but the idea that it’s political differences – as opposed to dereliction of duty – spurring on the proposed remedy seems to be a misread of the room. 

17. Member
    RufusRJones

    @RufusRJones

    1:59 AM EDT ⋅ Apr 10, 2022

    Rōnin (View Comment):
    The Republic is not dead, but I think if this keeps up some people will be bleeding.  Sooner or latter we will hit critical mass.

    I don’t think that many members get it but IWalton’s continual harping on centralization is the best way to think about it. 

18. Member
    RufusRJones

    @RufusRJones

    2:03 AM EDT ⋅ Apr 10, 2022

    JennaStocker (View Comment):

    I always listen because I think it’s valuable to hear what I agree with and what I don’t – because it often forces me to be uncomfortable with my previous assumptions or helps me better articulate those things I know in my heart and mind to be unshakable truths. It’s in part because of the hosts, the guests, and the thoughtful post-show comments of fellow listeners that is both entertaining and enlightening, and even a bit uncomfortable. Thank you for letting me in on it today, and on this site everyday.

    I always like it. I want to hear something different on the weekends and it’s perfect. I totally agree with everything else you are saying. 

    I think it comes down to the fact that the hosts have pretty unique backgrounds compared to talk radio and the vast majority of podcasts and they are good broadcasters. They have the gravitas to get an excellent class and different types of guests.

19. Coolidge
    Taras

    @Taras

    2:19 AM EDT ⋅ Apr 10, 2022

    EHerring (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    EHerring (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    EHerring (View Comment):
    How much federal snooping do you want in our states during elections? …knowing the Dems like they do…they would abuse that, in fact they already do.

    So the answer is to NOT look into election fraud? How does that help?

    I didn’t say don’t look into election fraud. States are perfectly capable of doing that. I specifically addressed federal overreach. States run their elections per the Constitution. You also forget Barr would not have been able to get very far before he left office and Garland and gang would have tube it anyway. We are a year and a half later and how many convictions have taken place. You have unrealistic expectations.

    Barr and others also tried to block state investigations, claiming they were federal purview and/or just claiming that the election couldn’t be questioned because that might cause people to question the election.

    Do you have a specific link to that? I do t remember it quite like that and would like to see what I missed.

    @EHerring — States are “perfectly capable” of looking into election fraud?

    Maybe so; but perfectly willing is another matter. Somehow, I don’t think, say, California or New York will be in a great hurry to look into election fraud if it helps the Democratic Party.

20. Member
    RufusRJones

    @RufusRJones

    2:26 AM EDT ⋅ Apr 10, 2022

    Topic wise, this isn’t exactly a textbook flagship guest, but they should interview Phillip Klein of the Amistad Project. He’s really thoughtful and he is really raising hell about the election.

    Phill Kline is a former state representative and Attorney General of Kansas. He served as Chair of the Republican Attorneys General Association and President of the Midwest Association of Attorneys General. He has also successfully argued before the Supreme Court.

    https://www.theamistadproject.org/who-we-are

     

21. Member
    RufusRJones

    @RufusRJones

    3:22 AM EDT ⋅ Apr 10, 2022

    I have a guest request. Mark Levin read this article from George Friedman on Friday. It’s at the one hour and 21 minute mark if you want to listen to it. Levin got it through Glenn Reynolds. This is extremely good on the political dynamics of Russia and Putin’s current circumstance. He just nails it if you ask me. 

    The big problem with Russia is, they need a strong security state more than they need prosperity. The people are far more worried about chaos than prosperity. The country is very poorly set up for economic output, even if they don’t have a screwy government.This starts a lot of bad dynamics. 

    https://geopoliticalfutures.com/how-the-ukraine-war-will-likely-end/

     

     

22. Member
    Capt. Spaulding

    @CaptSpaulding

    

    6:04 AM EDT ⋅ Apr 10, 2022

    Apparently Justice-designate Jackson is destined to be known as “Brown.” Can I blame Jackson Brown?

23. Coolidge
    EHerring

    @EHerring

    7:05 AM EDT ⋅ Apr 10, 2022

    Taras (View Comment):

    EHerring (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    EHerring (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    EHerring (View Comment):
    How much federal snooping do you want in our states during elections? …knowing the Dems like they do…they would abuse that, in fact they already do.

    So the answer is to NOT look into election fraud? How does that help?

    I didn’t say don’t look into election fraud. States are perfectly capable of doing that. I specifically addressed federal overreach. States run their elections per the Constitution. You also forget Barr would not have been able to get very far before he left office and Garland and gang would have tube it anyway. We are a year and a half later and how many convictions have taken place. You have unrealistic expectations.

    Barr and others also tried to block state investigations, claiming they were federal purview and/or just claiming that the election couldn’t be questioned because that might cause people to question the election.

    Do you have a specific link to that? I do t remember it quite like that and would like to see what I missed.

    @ EHerring — States are “perfectly capable” of looking into election fraud?

    Maybe so; but perfectly willing is another matter. Somehow, I don’t think, say, California or New York will be in a great hurry to look into election fraud if it helps the Democratic Party.

    I agree with you that some states are unwilling, but that is the problem for residents in that state. If blue states overwhelm red states with their fraud, then maybe red states need to address whether the compact is still worth it or whether they should sever ties. The founders anticipated some corruption and gave us the Electoral College system to neutralize it. Once we start thinking the federal government should step in and fix states, we will be no better then the totalitarian left. People can fix their states or move to other states. We are seeing that now.

24. Coolidge
    Taras

    @Taras

    9:23 AM EDT ⋅ Apr 10, 2022

    EHerring (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    EHerring (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    EHerring (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    EHerring (View Comment):
    How much federal snooping do you want in our states during elections? …knowing the Dems like they do…they would abuse that, in fact they already do.

    So the answer is to NOT look into election fraud? How does that help?

    I didn’t say don’t look into election fraud. States are perfectly capable of doing that. I specifically addressed federal overreach. States run their elections per the Constitution. You also forget Barr would not have been able to get very far before he left office and Garland and gang would have tube it anyway. We are a year and a half later and how many convictions have taken place. You have unrealistic expectations.

    Barr and others also tried to block state investigations, claiming they were federal purview and/or just claiming that the election couldn’t be questioned because that might cause people to question the election.

    Do you have a specific link to that? I do t remember it quite like that and would like to see what I missed.

    @ EHerring — States are “perfectly capable” of looking into election fraud?

    Maybe so; but perfectly willing is another matter. Somehow, I don’t think, say, California or New York will be in a great hurry to look into election fraud if it helps the Democratic Party.

    I agree with you that some states are unwilling, but that is the problem for residents in that state. If blue states overwhelm red states with their fraud, then maybe red states need to address whether the compact is still worth it or whether they should sever ties. The founders anticipated some corruption and gave us the Electoral College system to neutralize it. Once we start thinking the federal government should step in and fix states, we will be no better then the totalitarian left. People can fix their states or move to other states. We are seeing that now.

    I think the “States’ Rights” argument was lost in the 1950s so, in the language of hyperbole, we are already “no better than the totalitarian left.”  Corrupt State and local politicians, for example, are routinely prosecuted by the Federal government.

    It’s not like they are going to prosecute themselves, after all!

25. Member
    Annefy

    @Annefy

    9:38 AM EDT ⋅ Apr 10, 2022

    Taras (View Comment):

    EHerring (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    EHerring (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    EHerring (View Comment):
    How much federal snooping do you want in our states during elections? …knowing the Dems like they do…they would abuse that, in fact they already do.

    So the answer is to NOT look into election fraud? How does that help?

    I didn’t say don’t look into election fraud. States are perfectly capable of doing that. I specifically addressed federal overreach. States run their elections per the Constitution. You also forget Barr would not have been able to get very far before he left office and Garland and gang would have tube it anyway. We are a year and a half later and how many convictions have taken place. You have unrealistic expectations.

    Barr and others also tried to block state investigations, claiming they were federal purview and/or just claiming that the election couldn’t be questioned because that might cause people to question the election.

    Do you have a specific link to that? I do t remember it quite like that and would like to see what I missed.

    @ EHerring — States are “perfectly capable” of looking into election fraud?

    Maybe so; but perfectly willing is another matter. Somehow, I don’t think, say, California or New York will be in a great hurry to look into election fraud if it helps the Democratic Party.

    I think both sides are guilty of election fraud, which explains the lack of enthusiasm to get things correct. 

26. Coolidge
    OldPhil

    @OldPhil

    9:52 AM EDT ⋅ Apr 10, 2022

    Capt. Spaulding (View Comment):

    Apparently Justice-designate Jackson is destined to be known as “Brown.” Can I blame Jackson Brown?

    “Running on Empty”

    

27. Coolidge
    Taras

    @Taras

    10:14 AM EDT ⋅ Apr 10, 2022

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    EHerring (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    EHerring (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    EHerring (View Comment):
    How much federal snooping do you want in our states during elections? …knowing the Dems like they do…they would abuse that, in fact they already do.

    So the answer is to NOT look into election fraud? How does that help?

    I didn’t say don’t look into election fraud. States are perfectly capable of doing that. I specifically addressed federal overreach. States run their elections per the Constitution. You also forget Barr would not have been able to get very far before he left office and Garland and gang would have tube it anyway. We are a year and a half later and how many convictions have taken place. You have unrealistic expectations.

    Barr and others also tried to block state investigations, claiming they were federal purview and/or just claiming that the election couldn’t be questioned because that might cause people to question the election.

    Do you have a specific link to that? I do t remember it quite like that and would like to see what I missed.

    @ EHerring — States are “perfectly capable” of looking into election fraud?

    Maybe so; but perfectly willing is another matter. Somehow, I don’t think, say, California or New York will be in a great hurry to look into election fraud if it helps the Democratic Party.

    I think both sides are guilty of election fraud, which explains the lack of enthusiasm to get things correct.

    This seems to contradict the actual record, if by “sides” you mean parties.  

    Across the country, Republicans are fighting tooth and nail to improve election security; while Democrats are fighting just as hard to keep election procedures as lax as possible.

28. Thatcher
    Concretevol

    @Concretevol

    10:16 AM EDT ⋅ Apr 10, 2022

    Unsk (View Comment):
    AG Barr’s record at Justice was a wanton act of betrayal of not just Trump but the American  People

    But of course betraying Trump being the important thing right?   

29. Thatcher
    Concretevol

    @Concretevol

    10:21 AM EDT ⋅ Apr 10, 2022

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):
    Not a single question about all of the documented instances of federal election law violations. Not a single acknowledgement of the dozens of legal cases currently pending about them.

    Not a single question about the ZERO court cases won alleging fraud……. if frivolous pending lawsuits were any kind of evidence of anything then Trump himself would be considered guilty since he has had many made against him.  Maybe….and here me out……..Barr knows more than we do about if there were election fraud to the extent that the results were changed and concluded there wasn’t.  In some people’s world he should still act like there was but in his world apparently not. 

30. Thatcher
    Concretevol

    @Concretevol

    10:23 AM EDT ⋅ Apr 10, 2022

    EHerring (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    EHerring (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Steve Fast (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    -snip

    Did you miss the part where he admitted to not going after Antifa/BLM rioters because they were afraid of being called racist?

    That is not what I heard. What I heard was that Antifa members operate as a skilled paramilitary unit with tactics designed to not allow defendants to be identified.

    Start listening again at 53:10. He says it’s about “left” vs “right” but race is part of that too, of course. They don’t get information on groups like Antifa/BLM because they get “keel-hauled” for doing it. By the media, etc.

    I’d really rather not listen. This old heart can’t take much more.[snip]

    Or, according to @ garyrobbins, the DOJ/FBI is simply incapable of [snip]

    He said that’s why they don’t have information on Antifa/BLM like they do for “conservative” groups, and without information, it’s much harder to identify the participants etc.. -snip

    Barr didn’t say he approved of that; in fact, he said that he worked to develop effective tactics against Antifa/BLM rioters, but the implication was that it hadn’t been very successful. He also said that Antifa/BLM used much more effective tactics to cloak the identity of the law breakers and to prevent prosecution by claiming First Amendment protection.

    I think there were simply too many things going wrong in the DOJ and the nation for Barr to focus enough effort on a very difficult problem. Barr did a lot of good, but we need a series of strong AGs to right the ship.

    No implication needed. 100% unsuccessful.

    What’s a bigger threat? A group who caused billions of dollars of damage, destruction of businesses and deaths … or a bunch of FBI agents spending their time trying to entrap some Michigan boyos?

    We’re screwed, folks. We’re on our own.

    He didn’t justify that but said the problems in government are too deeply entrenched to be fixed by one president’s administration but said it took three administrations to fix it before.

    I repeat myself – we’re screwed, folks. We’re on our own

    Sometimes, possibly all the time, governments get too big to fix. The founders were wise to keep it small. We ruined a good thing in the 20th century. Government doesn’t readily give up power peacefully. The founders didn’t expect our good thing to last forever without people pruning the tree of liberty once again.

    I do agree with this point entirely.   Decentralization and Federalism are what I consider the best hope.  The federal government cannot be reformed