« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Structure Demands Behavior UPDATED

So we know the Republicans have mostly sold us out after we delivered the House and almost the Senate in 2010. We should know that whatever we deliver to the Republican leadership; be it a bigger House, a Senate majority, the White House in 2012, they will do nothing of consequence. Taxes won’t be cut or simplified; spending will hardly slow and given our last experience under total Republican government it may well accelerate.

The establishment, left or right, considers us (Tea Party supporters) to be naïve.

Every two years we play this game where, if only we can win, then our side can claim #victory and government will return, at least a little to its rightful place. We’re #winning!!! We believe them. But when we do manage to deliver #victory, government never gets smaller. We are naïve. #Sucker is a more accurate term.

I have kicked this around a lot.

I heard this first from one of the Ryun brothers of American Majority fame,

Structure Demands Behavior

They in turn got it from some business guru.

I think it is absolutely true.

At no time in the last hundred years have Americans wanted bigger government yet it is what we always get.

I firmly believe the changes made with the 16th, 17th and the Federal Reserve DEMAND the behavior that leads us to where we are.

If left unchanged, there is no possibility mere voting will make any difference. 100 years of voting through no less than 50 congressional elections and 25 Presidential elections proves this is true. CW recently sent me some passages from a book by Rose Wilder Lane, Discovery of Freedom. In the 40′s she was pointing out the crooked bastards can always round up enough votes with celebrity endorsements, picnics and vote buying. It is not better today.

(And thanks CW. I liked the excerpts so much I bought the book.)

The federal government has too much money with absolutely no accountability. As we see in the most conservative parts of Iowa, talk about killing a corn subsidy and they will kill your chances of winning. Talk about killing off shore drilling in Louisiana and it will kill you. Refuse to protect maple syrup in Vermont and the green mountain boys will lynch your campaign. Talk about cutting defense spending in CA and you’re dead. Means testing Social Security in FL? uh huh.

Congress is obviously NOT going to stop their gravy train any more than GE or Lars in Iowa is going to kill his. I do think Lars might be convinced to do the right thing if he knew GE would also be on the chopping block but GE will never concede.

That means that Republicans may even push for a BBA or Term Limits but “oh, so sad,” they always come up one or two votes short.

We are supposed to remain a bunch of naïve suckers never learning from the last cycle. We are supposed to believe they really are trying so hard to do the right thing and just can’t swing it.

I don’t believe them anymore. And while I have been a Republican since the age of 5 (literally and maybe earlier) I don’t trust any part of our party leadership. We can play this game ad infinitum. We will always lose.

I am done playing it. While I will continue to try to elect Republicans, with a few exceptions, I am only doing so because there are a relative few left in that party that get it. The Democrat Party has long since sold out the nation completely.

Instead I intend to focus on goals that can make a difference. Yes, we CAN elect Republican majorities. But to what purpose?  I am tired of being sold out.

It’s why I have arrived at the Article V Convention as the only possible solution. And it is a long shot on the order of We Pledge Our Lives, Our Fortunes and Our Sacred Honor. Not to change the constitution, but to change it BACK to what it was meant to be.

Structure Demands Behavior.

We are getting exactly the behavior our current structure demands. If we don’t change the Structure we will never change the Behavior.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I had some offline questions related to this post so I thought I would add the questions and my responses.

Q: Do you just want 16th and 17th abolished, or what else? I have lots of questions –
A: While I would take 16 and 17 gone as a start I don’t think it is enough. Here is why… The legal structure in terms of laws as well as the case law that has been generated would take as long to undo as they have taken to build. The stretching of the commerce clause for example. Making the federal government poor without restraining it would probably not get rid of the massive over regulation. In fact it might cause the federal government to turn to fines and fees for revenue. The federal courts would take generations to undo their endorsement of all of the federal overreach. They might not undo it ever. So I think something needs to be included to clarify the limited scope of the commerce clause.
On the subject of taxes, congress passed income taxes before the 16th was introduced. During the Civil War for example. So repealing 16 is good but clarifying particular restrictions would be much better. Some would say the courts had previously found against a federal income tax but they flip-flopped all over the place during the 30’s with FDR’s policies so I wouldn’t trust them to guard us if we repealed 16, we must also say emphatically NO INCOME TAX.
17 is an easier case. Repeal it and we go back to what was before. But, there were a few legitimate complaints that led to the 17th to begin with, one was having states fight over the appointment for extended periods of time so that a state was un or under represented in the senate. This can be cured by allowing governors to make temporary appointments while the legislatures fight it out. But it would need to be detailed in the repeal amendment.
You’ll hear me complain a lot about the Federal Reserve. But the biggest problem I have with it is that it is an unaccountable monopoly on the price of money. By mandating free use of gold and silver in private transactions the Federal Reserve will die on its own perhaps. It should also be barred from making loans to other central banks or foreign entities. If we leave it, and it continues in its current mission, the government will still have a tremendous advantage in terms of taxing us through inflation. It is part of the Federal Reserve’s mission to provide a constant devaluation of the dollar. This isn’t conspiracy theory it is called the target inflation rate. They usually shoot for 2%.
On the same subject is the balanced budget amendment. We don’t want them borrowing what they can’t tax after we repeal the 16th. They are many variations on this but I think we should keep it simple.
I would also like to see the number of House members tied to a hard number so congress can’t prevent the natural growth of House members. Say 50K per district.

Things that may not be crucial but awfully nice?
Immigration reform that stops birthright citizenship and outlaws amnesty. And this may be crucial actually.
Regulatory reform. I am sick of congresscritters pointing the finger at the EPA or OSHA and trying to shift the blame. If regulations are going to have the force of law they should be approved by congress after they are written. Congress makes the laws not half-witted unelected bureaucrats.
The right of repeal by states. If a supermajority of states vote to invalidate a federal law then it is gone.
There is a parental rights initiative going around. ParentalRights.org. It makes it clear parents choose education of their children as well as killing the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Treaty for internal purposes.
Treaty reform just to make it clear the senate can’t ratify our rights away.

And finally two that would be the most difficult, Right to Work and Social Security Reform that puts it into the hands of the states.

A lot of my thoughts are at americanamendment.com

Q: If the Democrats/Leftists can take over Republican primaries and caucuses, why couldn’t they hijack an Art 5 Convention?
A: It would be nice to be able to offer some guarantee here but there isn’t any. And that is part of the reason for my saying it is a long shot on the order of sacred honor and fortunes. It will be difficult to get a convention. And it will be difficult to be sure we control it. And it will be difficult to get it ratified.
Having said that lets look at the situation on the ground. Congress has terrible approval ratings. The country hates the president’s policies. 70% recently polled (Drudge Headline a month or two ago) as believing the federal government is the biggest threat to liberty.
The environment doesn’t seem to indicate lefties will win as lefties for sure.
No sitting congressman or senator can serve at the convention.
It seems unlikely anybody could get elected or appointed on a grow Washington platform.
The majority of the Freshman class in congress came from Tea Party roots. There won’t be an existing bunch of corrupt individuals ready to co-opt or compromise convention delegates, they will all be freshman class. Boehner won’t be waiting for them with a check in one hand and a stick in the other.
They also will not be standing for re-election and so will have less reason to play those kinds of games.
So assuming some lefties do win elections to the convention, I think it is highly unlikely they will have a majority. Probably a small minority at most.

Q: Given all of that, assume it is still hijacked, then what?A: Assume I am wrong and they take a majority.
Whatever might pass out of the convention still has to be ratified by ¾ of the state legislatures. We might not get them to repeal the 16th or the 17th but do you think it is likely 38 states would agree to transfer more power to Washington? Almost certainly, any oddball amendments or as EBL asked, “something that could have been written by Marx or Stalin” would be a dead letter. States have proven they are capable of rejecting amendments. For example, most recently the ERA amendment failed.

Except it didn’t fail. Because congress has implemented most of it through legislation. And that is really the point.
Another failed amendment from the 30’s was the child labor amendment. Congress just ignored the fact that the amendment failed and legislated it all anyway.

The final reason these fears are unfounded. Congress just does it anyway.

We have a Marxist Socialist takeover of our government already well underway. The ArtV is probably the only way to stop it at this point.

So really it comes down to this, congress recognizes no power higher than itself. It already implements one socialist policy after another. On any given day we are one justice away from having no gun rights. On any given day Kagan’s belief that government CAN order you to eat your vegetables is one justice from being the law of the land.
We just passed legislation authorizing the president to detain without trial, indefinitely, American citizens on American soil. No review, no nothing.

Given the far-fetched idea that the convention and then the state legislatures are hijacked by leftists, what are they going to do that they aren’t already doing? What new power would they give themselves that they don’t already pretend they have?

Q: If ratification requires 3/4 of legislatures, do you forsee 3/4 legislatures being conservative anytime soon?
A: I believe the answer to the question is better postulated, can we put together amendments that states, right or left, will selfishly want to pass to get Washington off their back. To take power back for themselves. To open up new avenues of taxation and to take control of spending prerogatives and get their people working and investing. A good example is right here in WV. Now that coal miners have been attacked for 3 years by the dirtbag in chief I think it is very likely we could see ending the EPA bring strong support in the people and the legislature. Well cleaning up the commerce clause does that.
But even given good amendments it will still be an uphill battle. The difference between this and voting Republican is simple, we give the Republicans victory and we are still losing. We pass a few good amendments and Structure Demands Behavior. The wind is at our back and the left is slogging it like we have been.

Q: If you are dis-enamored with the r Party, as are many, do you not agree that its faults appear at the state level, as well as the national?
A: True states aren’t perfect. The best way to win is to appeal to their selfish side. Convince them they can take their state straight to progressive \hell/utopia faster without federal oversight.
Also, in WV for example, each delegate represents about 20,000 people. A quick math problem later and we see that about 5000-6000 voters per delegate are actively voting. I know both my delegate and my state senator passingly. I am simply going to have a lot more pull with them than I will with Shelley Moore. Not every state has WV’s ratios but most have ratios closer to WV than congressional districts which have about 600,000 constituents and perhaps 200K or 250K voters.

Q: The Congress has all the power it needs right now to corral the executive and the judiciary.
A: And they have had 100 years to do it. They aren’t going to.
The only years the federal budget has shrunk at all in the last 100 are the 2 years immediately following WWII.
If they were men of honor and decency they could do lots of things. They are not going to.

Q: All it has to do is ….do it. Abolish by Congressional act executive departments and entire judicial districts. But I don’t think it will until it has a mandate. I don’t think you can do it by Congressional action and I don’t think you can do it by Article V until you have a mandate.
But, if you have a chief executive who works with the Tea Partiers in Congressional leadership positions, publicly and privately, maybe the structure could be altered enough in the short term to reverse the trend without arousing the sleeping public from their video games. Who would miss 500 federal judges? Who would miss the Department of Energy? A slick PR campaign might even make people not miss Education – “Return local control to schools.”

A: Same answer as above. We have had control of one or both houses at least 6 times. Both houses at least 3. Republicans have not produced a smaller budget or shrunk government during any of these periods except a couple of years following WWII. They aren’t going to do it.
Getting a mandate will be hard, no question. This will not be an easy fight. But if a mandate could be had and we go the legislative route instead of the constitutional route then any changes we make will be undone the next time a leftist majority is in place. It would be shortsighted to think they won’t be in power every 4-12 years. At least constitutional hurdles would set a higher bar for future protection. Let’s not build a house of straw.

Q: But let’s not forget the Malignant Statist Media. What do you see them feeding the American People during an Art5?

A: They will do their level best to lie and deceive, no question about it. When I said it was a long shot I wasn’t kidding. But put yourself in the shoes of Samuel Adams picking a fight with the most powerful nation in the world. Or Washington at Valley Forge, having been whipped by that nation across lower NY and all of NJ. We may not win. But we are surely losing now and if we don’t change our approach we will definitely lose as a function of course and time.
As to the press we will have to do our best to counter them and control the delegations. Almost like divine providence the internet today makes that possible like no time since 1776 when printing presses were scattered across the countryside and there was no effective control over them.

Take look at the original soviet constitution. I think you are going to find gulags and murder aren’t in there. Same with Cuba. It is the concentration of power combined with a lack of an effective accountability mechanism that produces the horrific result.

We have the same concentration of power and lack of accountability here today. Only the inertia of a people used to freedom has slowed them down. But with control of our educational system they have spent many years redefining freedom to mean licentiousness and egalitarianism.
In short, Americans had better defenses than Russian peasants so they have had to spend a century softening us up, like shelling the beach before landing.

Only the introduction of true accountability can save us now.

///////////////////////////////////////////////

AmericanAmendment.com

COMMENTS

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    I agree with you on the deleterious effects of the income tax, direct election of senators and to a certain extent the end of the gold standard but I think the root of our problems is more fundamental to man’s nature to become soft when affluent over time. More and more Americans have wanted and still want Big Government. Bork’s Slouching Towards Gomorrah is my gospel.

    I too would favor an Article V constitutional convention and think that the better chance for major improvement politically is via the One man with courage route rather than incremental congressional elections.

    But fundamentally our fate is going to be decided in the culture now and how we deal with the inevitable suffering that natural law is exacting and will increasingly exact due to our immoral mortgaging of the future via debt.

    more later

  • kowalski

    Back in my younger days, when I was cooler and better-looking and stronger and demonstrably sharper, I received an extremely good grade on what I thought (when I submitted it) was only a halfway decent paper I wrote for a fun course at a damn good school, discussing large issues of American governance about the most important matters.

    My first introduction to Constitutional Law wasn’t in high school or College proper or even while I worked for a law school, it was rather plain and nondescript, not even related to my major, in a classroom at Johns Hopkins University taking a course that was taught by a woman who was also a feminist. That semester we spent almost all our time reading Tocqueville and the Federalist Papers and the Constitution in the context of a hugely important contemporary subject: The Equal Rights Amendment. More carefully, why it wasn’t ever adopted in America after a long struggle involving tens of thousands of activists and liberal/progressive oomph at the highest levels to get it adopted, all across the United States.

    The course was crafted as an advanced study “get up to speed on the Constitution fast for smart students…and if you’re dumb you hang yourself” class about why the Equal Rights Amendment didn’t make it, and what to do about it. I disagreed with the ERA activists. The textbook was Mansbridge’s “Why We Lost the ERA”

    There were no shortage of activists all across the country who passionately, adamently wanted the Equal Rights Amendment to become the Law of the Land. Mansbridge’s book is still worth reading for anyone who hasn’t already.

    My petit thesis in the paper as a bare-knuckle dragging undergraduate who used to walk into class with rolled up sleeves and bulging biceps (yes, I was from New Jersey) sitting in front of my feminist professor was that the ERA failed for most of the reasons Mansbridge stated but also because the Constitution itself was resistent to change in the framework the Founders had created.

    She was a feminist, but my arguments were well-crafted in that paper and she was fair enough to give me a very high mark.

    I’ve also known law professors who are smarter than I am who want to comprehensively rewrite the Bill of Rights, removing certain amendments entirely (starting with the 2nd) and creating other brand-new ones.

    It’s a difficult task. The process of change is very slow and inertia is very high in terms of the Constitution. That goes for people who would like to roll back certain amendments as well as those who would like to create new ones. It’s a curse and a blessing of our system of governance that we live with that reality.

    Read the book when you get the chance. Don’t be angry: just realize that what you’re engaging in is a long-term proposition, and the “other side of the ditch” have vastly different alternative priorities and prerogatives.

    I liked that professor by the way. I still think she thought I was good looking, even though it was couched in that kind of passive-aggressive “hard to get” kind of love. :)

    • kowalski

      Don’t be despondent about what the Tea Party has accomplished in so short a span of time it’s existed.

      Once you get to that throw-the-towel-in kind of reasoning you have to question whether what you believed in was really worth it in the first place, and I don’t believe that at all.

      • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

        I don’t see this as a question of Tea Party failure. Just the opposite. The Tea Party has plenty of energy but when we consider the effect we have had on actual policy it is essentially nil. About 20 of the 70 some odd Tea Party freshmen have not been compromised or corrupted to some degree. With that attrition rate we will not retake control of congress in 2012. Sure Republicans will control it and that is better than democrats but during the last Republican control non-military spending still doubled in 6 years.

        So it is a recognition, giving Republicans control of congress and the White House IS NOT going to fix this. They have had all of that before and did nothing. Boehner has for a year had all of the power needed to make significant changes and none of the guts, or perhaps none of the intention.

        An Article V Convention threat, even if the convention never happens, may be the leverage needed to force congress into passing out amendments that are desperately needed. But if they refuse then we go to convention.

        There is a reason the establishment fears an Article V above all else,; Not the Congress, Not the President, Not even the Supreme Court will be able to control it or protect their power or influence from being eroded.

        This fear is our best hope. They may pass a BBA, or repeal 16 or17, or ????? in order to prevent the Convention.

        So yes elect Republicans, if for no other reason than they are easier to scare, but fire up the Article V convention resolutions and put the fear in them.

  • reddog53

    Your post is just simply superb….

    But I think we should give some strong consideration to using a relatively unused weapon in the arsenal, that seems to be getting some traction of late — having the states sue the federal government over the laws that Congress passes.

    Surely we can find some Attorneys – General from the States (Virginia, Georgia, Florida and Texas leap to mind) that could make a compelling case that laws that exempt members of Congress, except as provided for under the Constitution, are to be stricken from the books. If they can sue to block Obamacare, why would they not be able to sue on behalf of those citizens that aren’t granted these dispensations, as a violation of ‘equal protection.’ Certainly, Martha Stewart’s attorneys could make a compelling case for not permitting ‘insider trading’!!

    If you take away the insider trading, gifts, honoraria, special retirement and health benefits and other perks, wouldn’t we eventually get the Representatives and Senators we deserve? Those who come to Washington to represent their constituents and return home to their greater pursuits like Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Cincinnatus?

    There are honorable people among us that would be grateful for the opportunity to serve as Representatives without promise of massive personal wealth in the bargain. We need to ‘structure’ the system to develop them and not the self-aggrandizing folks that too often reach national office.

    We need to find, nurture and advance those people into office.

    • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

      I don’t see why we have to adopt only one strategy. Why not try a variety of means to get the structure we want. An Article V convention is one way, as is more gradual nibbling from the state level, as is continuing to work at the national level while remembering that it’s not going to mean #winning as we might wish. What we want is a long-term goal that ultimately requires cultural change (something that is always resisted) and that requires reversing the moral decline of our nation, including our attitude toward the future and being willing to pay now to get more later rather than our current mindset of buying now and paying a lot more later.

    • kowalski

      (nt)

      • kowalski

        Not just a flash in the pan. Not something that’s going to be gone in 5 years. Well, that involves thinking on longer timescales and bringing people into the movement who are not just graduated now, but people who are moving into places where they’re going to recieve their educations and keep working after that. It’s a long term effort.

        You take some licks now, define who you are, but you *dont* get despondent and quit. If the Tea Party wants to have a lasting presence in America it has to have something other than a fad behind it. That’s what takes real work.

        • kowalski

          We have two very serious differences of opinion about how government should work already. Fads are for hoola-hoops.

        • kowalski

          That I keep hearing all this blabbering about “Establishment” Republican candidates in this election and the amazing thing is:

          There Aren’t Any.

          We have:

          1) A Mormon Former Governor of Massachusetts
          2) An apostate Fomer Speaker of the House who doesn’t even write his own books and disavows everything he said in 2003-04.
          3) Some pizza shop running guy with a taste for the ladies
          4) Rick Santorum, who is about as far from the Establishment Republicans are you can get, because nobody ever thought he could be President and still don’t.
          5) Michelle Bachmann Who?
          6) Ron Paul
          7) Donald F’in Trump. Whew.

          And a few others. Where is the “Establishment” in this “Establishment” slate of candidates? It looks to me more like the Establishment took their hands completely off things and just let nature take its course.

          • kowalski

            Boy, I want the real Establishment back, because I’ll tell you: letting every man+woman+dog run for President against Barack Obama is turning out to be a huge mistake.

            I’m starting to wish really badly we had some actual Establishment leadership in this party again. Because the Democrats still do, and they’re going to clean our clocks.

          • kowalski

            And who is he? If anything he’s about the most Establishment candidate in the field and … the crickets are chirping.

            Meanwhile this very blog is twisting itself into pretzels supporting Newt Gingrich for some reason or another. But Gingrich is nothing but a flip-flopper according to their own definition and especially considering today’s story about his new book, which he isn’t even writing.

            The only thing I can figure is that 4 more years of Obama is actually going to be good for the *real* Establishment people. Because none of them are really running against him. We’ve got a collection of rogues, carnival hucksters, and also-rans running against him.

          • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

            how is this site supporting Newt, and how is Perry establishment. Lay off the Paul pipe.

    • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

      SCOTUS decides these and if there is one consistent principle that has come out of SCOTUS it is to extend federal reach and power at the expense of states rights and liberty.

      No, I am not saying every decision does this. Just a pattern. And why not? Who signs their checks? Who nominates them? If it ever came to that, who can remove them?

      But my larger point is this. particularly since the 16th and 17th Amendments were passed and the Federal Reserve was created, the federal government has been on a constant and massive growth curve.

      Through 50 congressional elections, 25 presidential elections, 6 periods of Republican control of one chamber and 3 or more periods of Republican control of both chambers, always the government grows.

      At some point you have to recognize that a flaw or feature of the system dictates this outcome. Combine this with the fact that a historical look at federal budgets shows an acceleration, at an exponential rate, shortly after 1913 when these things were put in place and the logical conclusion is that they may be that flaw.

      On the subjects of gifts and insider trading, etc. I would say this; We can’t control the drug trade because there is so much money involved it corrupts the entire system.. Cops and judges are bribed, juries are intimidated,the list goes on and on. Even on the “legal” side of the drug war law enforcement agencies often err on the side of “guilty” because asset seizure laws are now allowing them to reap large rewards unless you can prove your car isn’t guilty even if they can’t prove you are.

      I mention all of that because the amount of money controlled by congress obviously dwarfs anything associated with the drug trade. There is a reason GE spends so much on lobbying and campaign contributions from employees, it sells a lot of light bulbs and windmillls and aircraft engines, etc.Where else can you invest a few millions and receive billions in return?

      The way to end this isn’t to outlaw all of the items you mentioned because that will only result in more corruption across the board as law enforcement and the judicial system is corrupted (even more) to keep the money flowing.

      The better way to approach the problem is to remove the incentives to corruption as thoroughly as possible.
      Take away all but essential money and all but essential power.

      Limited Government.

      It doesn’t mean corruption will disappear. But it will be easier to spot when the federal budget is primarily military and 20% of its current size.

      In the meantime, yes, put honorable people in office where you can but understand 75% of them will be corrupted by a corrupt system.

      Just because somebody is a virgin doesn’t mean they will behave themselves in a whorehouse.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    I totally agree with the sentiment. We always seem to be played the patsy.

    But consider this. We only got republican control of the government for a very short time, six years out of the last fifty.

    Sure there were a lot of good ol boys running the show at that time, but there are a few less of them now.

    We also got sideswiped by the GWOT and Bush’s obsession with it.

    What it requires is that we DO NOT GIVE UP, that the tea party and other conservative groups keep fighting. If we get only a change of say 5-7% in the GOP legislators each time then in a dozen years conservatives will be in control

    We have to learn the way the left wins, through incrementalism. It will never be one big bang and then it’s done, that is fantasy.

    • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

      Why incrementalism works for them and not for us.

      We show up for a day, we are neat and pay for permits and leave no trash behind.
      Then we return to being productive citizens.

      They show up, camp illegally, leave mounds of trash and human waste, stay for weeks, get arrested for trespassing and then move onto another protest.
      They don’t return to being productive citizens because most of them never were.

      They have nothing better to do than constantly push the socialist agenda. In fact, we often pay them to do it.

      We have lives and eventually return to living them and paying taxes so #OWS folks can collect a check while corrupting our children.

      This would all be great for me to say anecdotally and we could disagree about the truth of it, approaches etc.
      Instead we have 100+ years of history showing incrementalism works for them not for us.

      If we look at our Revolution we see the same thing. A constant series of encroachments followed by a (relatively) quick, deliberate act against those encroachments.

      I think if you look at history generally you will see, freedoms are lost incrementally and recovered in rapid spurts.

  • nuclear139

    The constitution does not allow for direct democracy like recalls and constitutional admendments voted on by the people that can change Washington. This can only be accomplished by reaching out to all Americans even the disaffected liberals the Washington Post and New York Times love to talk so much about. If Washington is to be changed we are the ones who must change it not people who will promise the world if only you would give them more time in office to make things right. The people have always been the ones who have made the most changes to government and society but today we are called upon to do the same as our parents and fore fathers have done by changing as well as healing this broken country. Let us transform our constitution so our elected leaders are held to direct account to us and not just on election day.