Skip to comments.‘We Now Live in a Post-Constitutional Country’
Posted on 01/17/2012 5:20:49 AM PST by IbJensen
(CNSNews.com) - In an interview with CNSNews.com about his new bookAmeritopia: The Unmaking of AmericaMark R. Levin said he believes America has already largely become a post-constitutional country.
The book, released Monday, compares the Utopian and unworkable schemes laid out by political philosophers from Plato to Thomas Hobbes with the vision of natural law, God-given rights, and individual liberty that inspired the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Utopianism is not new, Levin writes in Ameritopia. It has been repackaged countless timessince Plato and before. It is as old as tyranny itself. In democracies, its practitioners legislate without end. In America, law is piled upon law in contravention and contradiction of the governing lawthe Constitution.
Levins verdict: Barack Obama and modern American liberals are firmly in the Utopian camppursuing a vision fundamentally at odds with limited government and human freedom.
I believe to a great extent we now live in a post-constitutional country, where much of the Constitution is ignored or evaded, Levin told CNSNews.com.
What I want the readers to understand, what I want the public to understand is, this is not new and its going to destroy us, said Levin. Its going to destroy us because it is an attack on the individual. It is an attack on the nature of human beings.
Mark Levin: How are you, brother?
Terry Jeffrey: I am doing great. Thanks for doing this. You know, each of your first three bestsellers were very different books. "Men in Black" talked about how the Supreme Court was ignoring or distorting the Constitution. "Rescuing Sprite" was a personal story about a dog you rescued, and "Liberty and Tyranny" talked about the way liberals in America today are threatening our freedom. This book is more a look at the comparison of the pathological political philosophy of the left, of those who might impose a tyrannical government, and the political philosophy that animated the Founding Fathers. Why did you write this book?
Levin: Well, because "Liberty and Tyranny" laid out, in my view, the basics between conservatism and non-conservatism. And I try to keep these books under 300 pages, so people will actually read them, and so they're interesting, and so perhaps they may even influence somebody. And then I got to thinking: Well, it's not enough just to talk about the Founding Fathers. Where did the Founding Fathers get these ideas from? You know, they didn't just wake up one day and think about individual sovereignty and private property rights and natural law and God-given inalienable rights and so forth. So, I decided to dig.
Now, I had a sense for this, obviously. But I decided to dig further as well as address this concern that all believers in the American system have always had. I mean, including the greats--including Abraham Lincoln, and Joseph Story, and Ronald Reagan--which was this concern that tyranny threatens democracy. But what is this tyranny?
Other than just describing it at surface level, who's involved in it, where does this come from? And, frankly, I needed to figure that out for myself. So, that's why I decided to really dig deep and I think I found the answer, at least satisfying to me, which are these phony utopian notions of how man needs to be controlled and these model societies--going back probably before Plato--but I had to pick certain philosophers, who came up with certain model utopian ideas, to give examples of totalitarian regimes, which really brilliant men came up with, and to warn people today that we're headed on the same glide path.
Jeffrey: You started out with Plato's Republic, and you talk about Thomas More and you talked about Hobbes and you end up talking about Karl Marx.
You point out in the book that even Plato in creating this utopia he had in mind, admitted that it wouldn't work, that it basically was in contradiction to even what he understood about human nature. But when you finally get around to Marx and Engels, there you have true believers. And as I was reading your book--and it had been a while since I looked at The Communist Manifesto--I'm thinking: Well, am I reading the Democratic Party platform here or am I reading The Communist Manifesto? You talk about The Communist Manifesto talked about the abolition of the family, talked about putting all children in public schools as a means of indoctrination, centralization of credit in the hands of the state, a heavy and progressive income tax, an abolition of the right of inheritance, and everything a struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Everything victims and the victimized, victimizers. Compare modern liberals in America today
Levin: Its upsetting isnt it?
Jeffrey: --to this vision that Marx and Engels had in The Communist Manifesto?
Levin: Well, you know its interesting. When Obama was running for office and saying these things--sort of saying them and sometimes accidentally blurting them out--I would say on my radio show he is speaking Marx here. This whole phony, historic material dialectic that he created of the two classes constantly fighting each other--the bourgeoisie and the proletariat--in other words, the people with money and land and so forth, the capitalists today, and the workers, the laborers, was phony from day one. And yet it attracted all the miscreants and the malcontents, anybody whos unhappy with existing society and so forth. And you can hear it in Obama today with the class warfare propaganda.
Jeffrey: Right--and Karl Marx really believed this though, right?
Levin: Well, Karl Marx really believed it and Engels really believed it, and obviously their followers, Lenin and Trotsky and Mao and the others really believed it. But the problem is this--and what I try to get into in the book is--whether it is radical egalitarianism, like More in Utopia, whether it is this two classes fighting with each other, this phony straw man argument that Marx and Engels come up with, whether its Platos Republic with this so-called ideal city where they decide whos going to be what where and whos going to do what where, or whether its Hobbess all powerful sovereignty, top-down authoritarian-type government--in our own country, we are abandoning constitutional republicanism.
I believe to a great extent we now live in a post-constitutional country, where much of the Constitution is ignored or evaded. And the utopians today, these statists who are promoting bigger, centralized, concentrated government, more power to them. Its not that theyre sitting there saying Im going to take from Plato and Hobbes and everyone, but they are taking from Plato and Hobbes. And what I want the readers to understand, what I want the public to understand is, this is not new and its going to destroy us. Its going to destroy us because it is an attack on the individual. It is an attack on the nature of human beings. It is an attack on the civil society.
Jeffrey: Right, in your book, as I understand it, when you talk about Marx and Engels and The Communist Manifesto, theyre talking about a radical transformation of society
Jeffrey: --where theyre changing everything from the structure of the family, to how kids are taught from the time theyre born, theres no private property, and to affect that transformation they have to trample individual liberty. Its impossible to do it.
Levin: All of these societies are fantasies. Theyre nightmares, but theyre fantasies. Theyre somebodys fantasy. Theyre a philosophers fantasy. Theyre people in power, its their fantasy. And what they all have in common is it is an attack on the nature of man, it is an attack on individual sovereignty, it is an attack on morality, its an attack on the civil society. And what I try to show in this book is this is a very, very serious mindset and its not the American mindset, and you can hear it in leftist politicians today--the way they talk, what they promote. And then I contrast with what I call Americanism, when we get to John Locke.
You see, John Locke was different than all those we just mentioned because the others were trying to figure out how to create this so-called perfect or more perfect society and impose it on people. John Locke said, You know, what I want to try and figure out is what makes man tick? How does his mind work? How does he gather knowledge? Where does morality come from? Where do these things come from? You notice the difference? One makes assumptions: Humans need to be controlled, individuals acting in their own regard is problematic and should be shunned. Whereas Locke said: No, no, no, no. We should embrace individuality, thats the nature of man.
Jeffrey: Mark, in Ameritopia you write, let me quote you back to yourself, you say of John Locke, Early in the Second Treatise of Government, Locke introduces the notion that of an individuals God-given and inalienable rights, in which all individuals are entitled and which provide the moral condition of a civil society. And you quote from Locke, The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone in reason which is that law teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions. For men, being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker, all the servants of ones sovereign master, sent into this world by His order, and about His business, they are His property whose workmanship they are made to last during His, not one anothers pleasure.
What kind of impact did this kind of thinking have on the Founding Fathers, for our country?
Levin: John Locke was the most frequently referred to and read of all the philosophers during the Revolutionary and pre-Revolutionary period. His impact on Thomas Jefferson was enormous. You can hear that as the basis of the Declaration of Independence right there. His impact on George Mason, with the Virginia Declaration of Rights--which was written about five or six weeks before the Declaration of Independence which was also used to influence the Declaration of Independence--was enormous. So Lockes influence, his discussion about man, mans knowledge, mans nature, natural law, was enormous. And yet, how often is Locke taught in high school and college, even today?
Jeffrey: Probably never.
Levin: Probably never, or very quickly, and yet Marx is taught all the time--
Jeffrey: Even if not overtly.
Levin: If not overtly. Yeah, we live it. But it is crucial to understand the foundations of our society. And, as I say, the Founding Fathers didnt just come up with this stuff.
Jeffrey: Locke talks about, obviously, a law of nature and what nature is and thats very much in the Declaration of Independence, as you say. With Marx and these other utopians you are talking about, if I understand you correctly, they dont like the natural order, they dont like the way people really are, they dont like the natural society that evolves from the free choices of people, so they have to trample on individual liberty in order to try and reframe things--
Levin: Thats right.
Jeffrey: --and restructure society according to their artificial model.
Levin: Well these are the masterminds. Theyre masterminds who decide this is what society ought to look like. You can hear our mastermind today, Barack Obama. Who should earn how much?
Let me tell you a couple of facts of life. There will always be income inequality and theres not a damn thing man can do about it. Now, hell try. The masterminds will try, and in trying well have coercion and misery and poverty because it is destructive of human nature. What Locke meant by equality, what the Founders meant by equality in the Declaration, was not conformity, was not uniformity, was not outcomes. What they meant by equality is there are certain God-given rights that every human being upon birth has. And those God-given rights are the right to live, the right to live freely, and the right to pursue your interests. In other words, the right to be unmolested by other people and unmolested by your government. This is the essential part of our founding, and if you listen to Obama today, they never talk about this. Its always about our collective interests and our collective desires and so forth.
Jeffrey: And in Lockes and in the Founding Fathers vision, the duty and purpose of government itself is to protect these rights.
Levin: And, in fact, when we get to the Constitution the purpose of the Constitution is to protect and preserve the society that they fought a revolution to protect against outside enemies. The purpose of the Constitution is to protect that society. Its to protect individual sovereignty. Its to protect all these things they fought for. So, when you have a president of the United Sates who says I want to fundamentally transform America, he is fundamentally rejecting the entire basis for the American system.
Jeffrey: In the book you also quote a couple of the Federalist Papers written by James Madison where hes talking about really the point of the Constitution is to put up enough government to protect peoples rights but then limit government so it doesnt trample on peoples rights.
Levin: Right. Thats the entire point. Locke talks about it and later, even more, Charles de Montesquieu. Now, Charles de Montesquieu had a longer name than that, baron and all the rest of it depending on what time of his life you pick. But people dont realize--and I didnt realize the full extent of Montesquieus influence on the Framers of the Constitution--and yet if you really think about it, if you read the Federalist Papers, hes mentioned several times in the Federalist Papers. So, I would ask the people watching right now: Were you taught about Montesquieu in school? Do you know much about Montesquieu? I know I wasnt taught a lot about Montesquieu and I studied the Federalist Papers left and right. So, I dug in.
Charles de Montesquieu
And in his Spirit of Laws, which in translation can be anywhere from 850 to a 1,000 pages in length, I dug in for a long time. This man was another genius. Hes the one who didnt come up with the concept but crystallized the concept of three separate branches of government, one working against the other. You know, he feared and Locke feared and the Founders feared all the same thing: centralized concentrated power, because they all knew from history and experience thats the basis for tyranny and totalitarianism. And Montesquieu was an absolute genius in explaining that.
Jeffrey: Mark, in Ameritopia you do quote John Locke talking about how representative government itself, not just monarchy, can be a threat to individual liberty--
Jeffrey: and the natural rights of the people. You look at things that are happening in American government today. You have a House of Representatives that is occasionally supine in resisting the Executive Branch, or a Congress in general, that is. You have a president who just a week ago appointed a director to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, three members to the National Labor Relations Board, theoretically as a recess appointment, but under the plain terms of the Constitution the Congress was not in recess. Do we see an erosion in America today of the separation of powers, the systems of checks and balances that Montesquieu envisioned?
Levin: Yes, this erosion has been going on for about a hundred years. Its at a much faster pace right now and theres a reason for this, because you cant have constitutionalism and utopianism. In other words, the purpose of the Constitution is to have a limited central government where the sovereignty remains with the individual and the people and the states. The purpose of utopianism is the opposite of all that. Its a relative handful of masterminds and their massive army of bureaucrats and their experts advising them from the colleges and so forth on how to run society.
You cannot have an EPA and a Constitution at the same time doing what this EPA is doing. You cannot have an NLRB deciding who gets to work where, how, and when, and at the same time follow the Constitution. You cannot have a tax code that serves basically the purpose of redistributing wealth, which is one of the things that Marx was pushing for so strongly, and at the same time be arguing about limited government and constitutionalism.
The utopians reject history. Everything begins today. The models they want to put in place begin today. So why anybody thinks theyre going to respect the Constitution when they dont respect the rest of history is beyond me. And what you see with Obama is the playing out of this soft tyranny--as I called it in Liberty and Tyranny--as de Tocqueville called it. What you see is the playing out of increasing coercion, increasing--Its even more than that: There is an attack on the American mindset, on the American psychology, and its been going on a long time. But you can hear it in his speeches now, where he is telling the American people you have a right, not to individual liberty, but you have a right to expect more from government, you have a right to take something from somebody else that doesnt belong to you. This is a battle of ideas.
Jeffrey: I believe Obama has even argued that America was not a great country until we saw the aggrandizement of government that came with the New Deal and the Great Society
Levin: Lets stop you there. Listen to those names. The New Deal and the Great Society. Listen to those utopian-type names. They are all intended to change the civil society. In other words, these are all different models and yet they have all these common threads that are intended to impose on the people--against their will--but impose on the people some kind of a utopian fantasy, which by the way the utopians cant actually define, they just keep pressing for it.
Jeffrey: I think in Ameritopia you quote de Tocqueville saying that American representative government will last so long as the legislators dont figure out they can bribe the people with their own money.
Levin: But, you know, hes not the only one to say that. Franklin at the Constitutional Convention and I paraphrase, he was too ill to get up and speak and he gave a speech to his fellow delegate from Pennsylvania, Wilson, and he read it. And what he essentially said was: Look, if the American people want despotism, theyre going to get despotism. Because the truth is the only thing that stands between tyranny and what we have today--a sort of a softer--is us. Were going to rely on the same institutions that are out a whack, the same system that has basically been hijacked by these folks, to return our constitutionalism and our liberty to us? I dont think thats going work which creates the problem is exactly what do we do about all this?
Jeffrey: From my view, Mark, if you look at the history of the aggrandizement of American government using your model here, it really starts to accelerate in the 1930s under FDR--
Jeffrey: --with the creation of a federal welfare state, breeding of dependence among the American people, accelerates more in the 1960s under LBJ with the increase of the welfare state. George Bush didnt help us out--
Levin: No he didnt
Jeffrey: --when he created the Medicare prescription drug plan. But there seems to be a model where Democrats come into power they want to expand the welfare state and the dependency of the American people, reduce individual liberty, move away from this vision that Locke and Thomas Jefferson had. When Republicans follow them into power, what we get is people who say: Hey, were going manage this a little better. Were going do this a little better. Were going to make it a little bit cheaper, a little more efficient. They dont say were going to roll it back and get rid of it.
Jeffrey: And do you believe were reaching an endgame here where we either have to choose to just go to the financial and freedom disaster of the welfare state or really roll the federal government back and move back to a free society?
Levin: Well, the latter. And the question for me today isI talk about this post-constitutional country we are in, and the name of the book is Ameritopia, because I believe we live today not in the American republic, you know, founded by our forefathers, we live in an Ameritopia. And Ill give you some examples, as I do in one of the chapters, of the book. Look around in your house. You cant even decide what light bulb to put in your house or showerhead or toilet. Open your medicine cabinet. Everything in there is regulated. Look at your electronics. Every single electronic device you have has some government stamp of approval. Washing machines, dryers, toasters, the gypsum board that is used to build your home, the roofing tile that is on your house, whether you can actually build a house on a particular piece of property that you own, all of this is regulated and managed by government.
So you have to ask yourself: How did we exist before all this? How did we manage to get along before all this? And Im just starting. If we take the automobile: Automobiles are now designed in Washington D.C., pretty much. If you look at even the labor market: The labor market is basically a response to all these government laws, labor laws and other laws that are in place. Go down this hallway here to the vending machine. The vending machine is now regulated by the Department of Agriculture and other parts of the government on what can be said and cannot be said about the stuff thats in the vending machine.
Jeffrey: To sell somebody a candy bar.
Levin: Okay. Now let me ask you this. Is this a constitutional republic? Is this a liberal federal--What is it? Its an Ameritopia. Let me tell you something. The problem with Ameritopia, or any utopia, is that it doesnt end well--unless the people do something about it, because there is no end to it. Karl Popper talked about this. Karl Popper said theres piecemeal utopianism, piecemeal social engineering. He came up with that phrase social engineering and he was quite right. The fanatics-- which is what Obama and the Democratic Party have become, fanatical utopians--there is no end to what they want to do. There is no end to the spending, the taxes and the regulating. How do we know when weve reached this fantasy? How do we know that we achieved whatever it is we are supposed to achieve? Where are the designs? Where is this written? There are no designs and it isnt written. The one thing we know for sure is that the circle of liberty for the individual gets tighter and tighter and tighter and tighter.
Jeffrey: Mark, before 2010 election, there was the emergence of the Tea Party movement, which seemed to represent the real spirit on the part of the American people to roll the government back and start us in the other direction. It resulted in the election of a Republican-controlled House of Representatives. It seems like maybe the steams gone out of that since the 2010 election. Do you think there is an actual constituency in the country that real political leaders in the practical world can put together to elect a government that will actually head us back in the right direction?
Levin: I dont know the steams gone out yet. I think in many respects the Tea Party is more sophisticated. I think they are organized and so forth. The problem is if our political system is not responsive to tens of millions of people who rise up, who vote, who after the election expect significant change in the right direction, the reestablishment, or the beginning of the reestablishment, of constitutional government and limits on the central government, and when the party they get involved in doesnt do that, in fact rejects them, in fact in many ways mocks them, Im very concerned about this.
Jeffrey: Then what do they do?
Levin: Well, Im concerned about it because if there are not civil legitimate ways to effect political change, things can get ugly. And, by the way, from the left or the right. So part of the problem with this whole utopianism is it balkanizes people, it appeals to the lowest common denominator--in other words it responds to malcontents and miscreants and so forth. Successful people, industrious people, Tea Party people, are the targets of their attack, the targets of their laws and their spending decisions, and so a society begins to unravel and the civil society begins to unravel. I say at the end of the book, I dont know where this is going to go. And I am very, very worried about where this is going.
Jeffrey: In this campaign there has been some candidates who have gone out and expressly appealed to the founding documents, particularly the Declaration of Independence, and said: You know, if Americans can unite around anything, its this idea you talked about in the book: that there is a natural law, there is a God, Hes created this order, we can create a civil society based on that thats free, and theyre basically putting their faith in the idea that the American people will rally around that idea. Do you believe that idea still has the currency to be the core theme of a political campaign?
Levin: Well, I hope so, because if it doesnt were done, arent we? Because that means that enough people in this country have been conquered or have surrendered their free will, and their independence and their sovereignty to a utopian design promoted by temporary politicians that will be their undoing. And when you go back to the beginning of the book, I say what I want to examine here is what kind of force lures millions of millions of people and destroys them. And thats this utopianism. So we have a president and others who talk about how they are going toand notice also he doesnt want to run on his record because we know this stuff cant work. Its impracticable. Its impossible. Youre not going to have a healthcare system that provides quality healthcare for everybody under cost, cuts the deficit, and its available whenever you need it. Thats a bold-faced lie.
Jeffrey: --without rationing.
Levin: Without all kinds of dislocations and so forth.
Jeffrey: Its a utopian scheme.
Levin: Its the scheme. So what do they do? They talk about what theyre going to do five years from now, or the next term, or ten years from now, or thirty years from now. And Popper talked about this. They come up with these grandiose schemes and they want you to keep looking at the end of the rainbow, not the rainbow, because they cant actually construct the rainbow. But at the end of the rainbow theres this paradise. And all you have to do is surrender more of your liberty, and more of your private property rights, and follow the Pied Piper over the cliff, and one day well all get there.
Jeffrey: On a few occasions Mark, when President Obama has alluded to the Declaration of Independence, he has very cleverly edited it--dropped out the Creator, nowhere our rights came from. Do you believe that Obamas fundamental vision--with his talk about class war and victims and victimizers, and the way he frames the political debate--that his fundamental vision is basically Marxist, is basically similar to the sort of vision that Karl Marx and Engels were laying out?
Levin: By the way, hes not the first one to abuse the Declaration this way. FDR used to do it all the time. No, he didnt take God out, but he talked about rights as privileges. And, also, the man FDR relied on for his Social Security program, Seager, Seager went on and on and was very outspoken and direct about it: We need to attack this notion in America thats very deep about individualism; weve got to change that to collectivism. And FDR picked up on that.
Look, Ive said that Obama is a Marxist. Now, theres 50 different types of Marxists, but it really doesnt matter if I call him Marxist or not. If people are more comfortable, call him a utopian, because thats exactly what he is. Call him a statist, call him whatever you want. What I do know is when a man runs for office and he says repeatedly that he wants to fundamentally transform America, I know two things: Number one the Constitution does not empower the president to fundamentally transform America. It gives him certain responsibilities. Thats what he gets to do, that and nothing more. Fundamentally transforming America is unconstitutional on its face. Number two, fundamentally transforming America, as Ive said before, means you must hate America. Why would you want to fundamentally transform something that you love? So, he doesnt like the Constitution because the Constitution stands in the way of these people, the leftists. The Declaration of Independence is rejected.
Woodrow Wilson, in a speech he gave in the early 1900s, before he ascended to the presidency, he dismisses the Declaration of Independence. FDR dismisses the Constitution of the United States. They have to. They have to destroy the existing society and traditions to impose on us this abstraction that theyve created. This dogma, this religion, which were all compelled to follow even though it results in our own demise.
Jeffrey: Which can never be achieved.
Levin: It cant be achieved. The only thing that can be achieved is the destruction of the individual.
Jeffrey: Mark Levin, author of Ameritopia. Thank you very much.
Levin: My pleasure, God bless.
This is hardly news. Americans want this to happen, and have demanded it again and again on election day. Now that it has gone this far and Americans have ignored the warnings, it will hardly do any good to complain about it. America deserves this.
Liberty and Tyranny is the conservative manifesto. It is akin to Barry Goldwater’s Conscience of a Conservative for that generation. Levin’s new book sounds like a continuation on that theme and I look foward to reading it.
Mr. Levin lamentations seem odd coming from such a fan of Mr. Lincoln, and his lambasting of what he calls "neo-confederates" on his radio show.
Article I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress enumerates the powers of the Congress, and those in Congress have gone way beyond the enumerated powers.
Article II - The Executive Branch, Section 1 - The President No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . I believe that Obama is probably a citizen of the United States by birth but possibly not "a natural born Citizen" under the legal definition understood by the Founding Fathers and in force until the last four years. If the former junior US Senator from Illinois really is a natural born Citizen, I wonder why they would work so hard to avoid proving his legal qualifications for the job he is so massively unprepared to perform.
Then we get into the Bill of Rights, and it's sad how much effort goes into working around those God-given and constitutionally-protected fundamental human rights. Starting with (First Amendment) no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, and (Second Amendment) A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, and continuing through (Fourth Amendment) the TSA intrusion on the right of the people to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures, the (Eighth Amendment) evolving definition of cruel and unusual punishments, and the effective erasure of the (Ninth and Tenth Amendment) restrictions on governmental power.
The bottom line: The author is correct and understates his case at least in this article.
Mark Levin is a coward and a fraud. Ask that traitor to define NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
ping to this article
Too bad you don’t care for Mark Levin. Most socialist do not, you know.
He is a naturalized American Citizen. He knows more about this nation than you do.
Many of us now know too damned much about this nation and are heading North.
Joseph Sobran coined that term many years ago.
What do you mean “heading north”?
Transforming America is a violation of the Presidential Oath of Office.
The next New York Times bestseller. Gee, I can't wait for the communists at that paper to review it.
You’re a moron.
He is a demigod too.
And you are a traitor to your sworn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
Many people started hunkering down as soon as they realized that Ubama was no longer interested in hiding his communist agenda. The communist health care that he and his party minions cheerfully and brazenly shoved, Nazi-style, down Americas thoat was the cherry on top. Hunker down now, if you havent already. This Kenyan p.o.s. has absolutely no interest in normal American citizens. Ubama is all about “back door” reparations, and creating as many government-addicted parasites as possible because that is the natural way to expand the Democrat party base.
Bail on stocks and bonds entirely. Sell any valuable items you can bear to part with (while there are still buyers with cash to pay for them) and hoard enough cash money in the mattress to make at least 2 years of monthly payments on credit cards and mortgages that youre not liquid enough to pay off immediately. Move whatever cash you have left into gold. Not paper that says you have gold - - real gold that you can roll around in your hands like G. Gordon Liddy. (Personally, I prefer gold coins.) Distance yourself in every way possible from government and anything it touches. Good luck.
P.S. Run, dont walk.
Obama sees things in terms of a Third World socialist. His father was an African Marxist and his mother a leftist skank. Nothing in his background or experience - far left community organizer, 20 years with the hate-monger Pastor Wright, close friendship with terrorist Bill Ayers, shady real estate deal with Syrian (now jailed) swindler Tony Rezko, associations with Louis Farrakhan and black militants - makes him a real American in terms of values or world view. Obama spent 150 days in the U.S. Senate, about 120 of them campaigning. He spent a few years in the Illinois state legislature voting present. Never has America been so poorly led. Its like the nation committed suicide by stupidity.
Not rolling in gold; overhauling the sailboat I live aboard and investing in bullets and beans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.