PDA

View Full Version : Tea Party? Constitution? WOW...Watch this...


Lethal_addict
05-23-2009, 6:56 AM
This guy's video on youtube has been so popular that rumer has it Obama < br> called him personally. He said that he was very disturbed with the video and
invited him to the White House. Obama also apraently said he wanted the White House to
handle the Press and not to talk about the video or the White House visit.

Update: What is posted above came to me in an email. We have nothing supporting the actual statements of Obama doing this. However, I'd be very surprised if it has not come to his attention with the press it is getting nationwide.

Watch it now. This may be the best six minutes invested in your future
You may have to turn your Sound Control up some.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA

PS:Moderator, I'm hoping this is the appropriate place to post. It has to do with our politics, law and our country. If it needs to be moved please do so.

nic
05-23-2009, 7:04 AM
Bob Basso is awesome. I absolutely love his videos, and wish they'd get even broader exposure.

Rob454
05-23-2009, 7:25 AM
Bob Basso is awesome. I absolutely love his videos, and wish they'd get even broader exposure.


With the liberal media in this country? yeah you can count that out.

motorhead
05-23-2009, 8:18 AM
+1 meg!!! feinstein should be strapped to a chair and forced to watch ONLY THIS for a few days (or weeks).

Theseus
05-23-2009, 8:51 AM
Good! Maybe this guy can impress into Obama how much at a crossroads we are.

There are many that feel this way and I can't say I blame them. We are quickly headed down the path that our fore fathers were and we have a choice.

This guy's video on youtube has been so popular that Obama < br> called him personally. He said that he was very disturbed with the video and
invited him to the White House. Obama also said he wanted the White House to
handle the Press and not to talk about the video or the White House visit.
That's interesting.

Watch it now. This may be the best six minutes invested in your future
You may have to turn your Sound Control up some.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA

PS:Moderator, I'm hoping this is the appropriate place to post. It has to do with our politics, law and our country. If it needs to be moved please do so.

sgtlmj
05-23-2009, 8:59 AM
Do you have a source or article about Obama calling this guy? I'd like to see it and pass it on if you do.

bruss01
05-23-2009, 9:09 AM
I too want to see a reputable source for Obama actually calling this guy. Not calling BS, but that seems like the kind of thing that would be delegated to a minor minion, not really something Big O would handle himself with a personal phone call. Great video, it should be a mandatory viewing in every public school classroom, and watched once every six months (yeah right like that is ever going to happen).

Erik S. Klein
05-23-2009, 9:17 AM
I disagree with abolishing the electoral college and I disagree with forced service, but the rest of it is right on.

Theseus
05-23-2009, 9:27 AM
Actually he mentions in one of his videos that he was in fact NOT invited to Washington.

socal2310
05-23-2009, 10:24 AM
I have several additional/ alternative suggestions:

Social Security, like all other forms of social welfare ought to be phased out. Eliminating illegal alien access to welfare is putting a band aid on a broken leg.

Eliminate the Federal minimum wage, its a (ironically) regressive law that favors large businesses who can afford expensive labor over small businesses and makes it difficult for the market to punish states that mandate high wages.

Create expiration dates for unions; force them to face recertifying elections at specific intervals.

Force all national legislation apart from declaration of war to face strict scrutiny tests in front of the Supreme Court before they can go into effect.

Repeal the 16th, 17th and 23rd Constitutional Amendments.

Ryan

5968
05-23-2009, 10:37 AM
Actually he mentions in one of his videos that he was in fact NOT invited to Washington.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xxDwBYjL3Fc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xxDwBYjL3Fc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

pTa
05-23-2009, 10:44 AM
Awesome!
No plan will please everyone. I have issue with two or three points but would gladly lay them aside to send a strong message to our employees in the gov.

G17GUY
05-23-2009, 10:44 AM
I have several additional/ alternative suggestions:

Social Security, like all other forms of social welfare ought to be phased out. Eliminating illegal alien access to welfare is putting a band aid on a broken leg.

Eliminate the Federal minimum wage, its a (ironically) regressive law that favors large businesses who can afford expensive labor over small businesses and makes it difficult for the market to punish states that mandate high wages.

Create expiration dates for unions; force them to face recertifying elections at specific intervals.

Force all national legislation apart from declaration of war to face strict scrutiny tests in front of the Supreme Court before they can go into effect.

Repeal the 16th, 17th and 23rd Constitutional Amendments.

Ryan

Then go make your own video. This is not about your pet projects. Its about the constitution.

cactustactical
05-23-2009, 11:09 AM
Wow...

I think this guy is doing these Vids without a teleprompter even!!

.

Roadrunner
05-23-2009, 11:48 AM
Here are the 4 four vids I found

xxDwBYjL3Fc&feature

le2OnDKqj3g&feature

pKFKGrmsBDk&feature

jeYscnFpEyA&feature

Bizcuits
05-23-2009, 11:51 AM
Do you have a source or article about Obama calling this guy? I'd like to see it and pass it on if you do.

+1, any follow up on an actual source?

Roadrunner
05-23-2009, 11:55 AM
According to the vid, there hasn't been any personal contact between Obama and Basso.

socal2310
05-23-2009, 12:39 PM
Then go make your own video. This is not about your pet projects. Its about the constitution.

Gee G17 Guy,

Which of my ideas do you believe to be in violation of the Constitution? One of his suggestions (eliminating the Electoral College) would also require a Constitutional Amendment.

Ryan

Lethal_addict
05-23-2009, 1:16 PM
Sorry about the article portion it has not been validated. That was what came in the email I received. I am going to remove that statement since it has no authenticity.

Sorry...

Jpach
05-23-2009, 1:38 PM
Thats a great video. I wonder what Obama said to him. I know this is a serious thread and all but I cant help but to put this up for yall to see

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FwJduPtCvSM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FwJduPtCvSM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Legasat
05-23-2009, 2:09 PM
Where have you guys been? Bob Basso has been all over TV, radio and Youtube for a while now.

Great guy, Great videos, Great Ideas!

Theseus
05-23-2009, 2:53 PM
Well excuse me Mr. I am always in the know about everything! :rolleyes:

Haha.

Where have you guys been? Bob Basso has been all over TV, radio and Youtube for a while now.

Great guy, Great videos, Great Ideas!

RomanDad
05-23-2009, 3:10 PM
THIS GUY should run for president.

RRangel
05-23-2009, 3:12 PM
I disagree with abolishing the electoral college and I disagree with forced service, but the rest of it is right on.

That's what I was thinking. The man is a good actor, but he lost me when brought up the electoral college.

Cato
05-23-2009, 3:35 PM
I have a extreme liberal co worker who is really freaked out over this stuff.

edward
05-23-2009, 4:18 PM
That's what I was thinking. The man is a good actor, but he lost me when brought up the electoral college.

Ditto. Getting rid of the electoral college just pushes this country further into direct democracy. Yeah thats what we need, more mob rule. Cause its worked out so well for us so far. :rolleyes:

And since when is mandatory service compatible with the Constitution or individual freedom? He may not like the fact that some young people have an entitlement complex, but that minor personal vice doesn't seem anywhere near as bad as a government that owns you by mandate for 2 years of your life.

hawk81
05-23-2009, 4:50 PM
Talk is not cutting it anymore.

Midian
05-23-2009, 5:05 PM
Seen this one? His letter to Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxDwBYjL3Fc&fmt=18

TheCilician
05-23-2009, 5:30 PM
With the liberal media in this country? yeah you can count that out.

It's with that attitude that messages such as this video are quickly lost. You just give up as if "Oh...why work...I'd rather go wack myself off..."

No godda**t. We need to work on getting the message out there! This IS OUR country, not the politicians.

Read this article on what Montana is doing....It's in lamen terms, so EVERYONE can understand it.

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

7x57
05-23-2009, 6:14 PM
And since when is mandatory service compatible with the Constitution or individual freedom?


Since 1789.


He may not like the fact that some young people have an entitlement complex, but that minor personal vice doesn't seem anywhere near as bad as a government that owns you by mandate for 2 years of your life.

Sadly or not, that was part of the social compact and is not simply compatible with the Constitution but in fact is implicit in the usage of terms like "militia." They explicitly used Classical Greece and Rome as models, and every man had a duty and obligation to military service should it be needed.

Now you may disagree as a matter of policy, but if you want to attempt to read the Constitution in such a way as to agree with your preferred policy then your procedure is in fact a Living Constitution one. You are simply promoting a different ahistorical, consensual meaning for this no-longer-fixed document.

In other words, the claim that the draft is unconstitutional is as fatal to the enduring meaning of the Constitution as is the collective rights theory. Neither respect the social compact the founders believed they were agreeing to and binding their descendants to. You put the whips and clubs into the gun-banners' hands.

7x57

edward
05-23-2009, 6:41 PM
Since 1789.



Sadly or not, that was part of the social compact and is not simply compatible with the Constitution but in fact is implicit in the usage of terms like "militia." They explicitly used Classical Greece and Rome as models, and every man had a duty and obligation to military service should it be needed.

Now you may disagree as a matter of policy, but if you want to attempt to read the Constitution in such a way as to agree with your preferred policy then your procedure is in fact a Living Constitution one. You are simply promoting a different ahistorical, consensual meaning for this no-longer-fixed document.

In other words, the claim that the draft is unconstitutional is as fatal to the enduring meaning of the Constitution as is the collective rights theory. Neither respect the social compact the founders believed they were agreeing to and binding their descendants to. You put the whips and clubs into the gun-banners' hands.

7x57

Fair enough, but that wasn't what Bob was talking about. He says he wants 'universal service' be it military or community for all people in what I would guess is the typical draft age range, for 2 years, period. I don't believe I've ever read a quote from the founders advocating that position...

A draft in wartime is in my opinion a different creature and while it is ideal to have an entirely volunteer military, its not realistic all the time. However, compulsory service in perpetuity from all people who come of age seems stupid, unnecessary and a waste of taxpayer money. Ohh and authoritarian. Can't forget that.

umoja
05-23-2009, 8:18 PM
Sadly or not, that was part of the social compact and is not simply compatible with the Constitution but in fact is implicit in the usage of terms like "militia." They explicitly used Classical Greece and Rome as models, and every man had a duty and obligation to military service should it be needed.


A militia is still voluntary. During the revolutionary war, people were not pressed into serving in a militia.

A draft, no matter how short, is still an infringement on liberty.

7x57
05-23-2009, 9:21 PM
I'm awfully tired to be doing this kind of heavy lifting, but the simple and foolish equation of freedom with lack of duty is a big problem in understanding what eighteenth century liberals wrote. They made distinctions, and one is between the absolute freedom of the state of nature, which cannot survive when met with organized opposition, and the freedom of the citizen who has delegated some freedom so that he can retain the rest even in the face of opposition. Liberty consists in making the best social bargain and gaining the maximum amount of freedom for what you pay.

Therefore, one delegates certain powers to the government because the result is more free than not. In a state of nature, you are free to take another's goods, if you have the strength. That is a kind of freedom, but in practice it does not lead to freedom for any but the strongest. Real liberty is when the weak take an oath obligating all to defend each, so that when the strong man comes again to take one man's goods he is repulsed by all. Did the others lose freedom? Yes, they were obligated by their social compact to stop using their time to benefit themselves and come to the aid of another. But because each benefits in turn, the freedom that remains is robust. It survives conflict in a way that absolute, naive freedom cannot. This seems to be how the founders conceived the citizen's obligation to military service--you give up a small freedom, that is some money and some time, in order to preserve your freedom to do what you will with the rest.

While I know why that sticks sideways in the craw of many modern Libertarians who refuse to read history as studiously as the left does, it always staggers me that this is true of gun-rights people. The left used to claim we ignored the prefatory clause of the 2A, and actually I believe there is force in this accusation, though its meaning is precisely the opposite of what the left thinks. The prefatory clause connects the private right to a particular public duty, and the existence of such duties is really what bothers what the founders probably would have regarded as pathological individualists who do not recognize themselves bound to any social compact.

The 2A states the reason why the the RKBA is not merely a matter of private safety but of public necessity: that when men are conscripted, they are already equipped and trained. They conceived that one of the burdens and duties of liberty is to equip ones self with the means to remain free, which means spending one's own money on arms and one's own time to be trained. Thus, the state had the power to specify the arms and the training--and the Constitution, by delegating to the Federal government the power to regulate the militia, gave the Federal government final say.

Now in the eighteenth century the states certainly had the power of conscription, so the argument of some in this thread must be that they had this power in wartime only. Once again, we have ahistorical thinking, starting with the very idea of making blanket statements about what the states can do. One doesn't know, as they were conceived to be independent nations bound in a Confederation. So if you want to say what the states can do, you must check each Constitution. The answers may be different in each state.

As for what the federal government can do, part of the powers delegated to it are the regulation, and that means training. It means that federal government has the explicit power to demand your time to take part in military training. While a burden, that is the opposite of slavery--it is the privilege of a free citizen to be responsible for the safety of his state.

Is that a draft? It is compulsory taking, if you will, of your private time and money in peacetime, which seems to be what people object to. But untrained citizens lose on the battlefield--so for liberty to endure you must not only be liable for wartime service, but for the peacetime preparation that makes that wartime service effective.

Which brings us to the heart of the matter. The left argues for reinterpretation of the 2A based essentially on a desire to implement policies it finds good. If you wish to reinterpret it for your own policy agenda, you are implicitly agreeing to their procedure--you simply disagree on how it should be used. On the other hand, if you wish to argue for an enduring meaning for the 2A which is the law regardless of their policy preferences, then you are going to have to accept the actual original meaning, which is that the government can demand your time and even money to keep the militia in a state of preparedness, in time of peace.

If you dislike that you are free to attempt to amend the Constitution, just as the left is free to attempt to amend it to repeal the Second Amendment. However, the founders would not have agreed that this serves freedom; instead, they would have said it weakens the state so that loss of freedom is more likely.

But to some extent this argument is impossible to make today--the combination of right, duty, freedom, and compulsory service is too subtle to people who do not make ethical distinctions. Not all compulsion is slavery--the citizen simply has a different obligation than the slave. And the citizen freely surrenders this small bit of freedom to guarantee the rest. That is what makes him a citizen. Lack of that sort of duty is what makes another a slave.

Too tired to write more. Will see if that was coherent later.

7x57

MrClamperSir
05-23-2009, 10:10 PM
Will see if that was coherent later.7x57

Coherent and a great read. Thanks.

retired
05-23-2009, 11:21 PM
I disagree with abolishing the electoral college and I disagree with forced service, but the rest of it is right on.

I was simply going to respond to Erik's disagreement of forced service by saying I disagree with that. 7x57's post certainly does it more eloquently.

I believe everyone, unless medically/physically/criminally (I've tried to think of all exemptions, but I'm sure there are more) exempted, should either serve in the military or community for 2yrs. upon coming of age.

Roadrunner
05-24-2009, 7:45 AM
I believe the founders also took into consideration "conscientious objectors" when exempting certain people from military service.

Erik S. Klein
05-24-2009, 8:38 AM
But to some extent this argument is impossible to make today--the combination of right, duty, freedom, and compulsory service is too subtle to people who do not make ethical distinctions. Not all compulsion is slavery--the citizen simply has a different obligation than the slave. And the citizen freely surrenders this small bit of freedom to guarantee the rest. That is what makes him a citizen. Lack of that sort of duty is what makes another a slave.

Very coherent and well done!

My take is that there is a difference between duty and compulsion. The latter should not be necessary if the state itself is worthy of protection.

In short, any nation that needs to draft an army to protect itself isn't worthy of continued existence.

But what you wrote is right on regardless. Even in a pure libertarian state (quite impossible, really) the people would be obligated to relinquish freedoms for the greater good or the state would be rendered chaotic.

edward
05-24-2009, 10:28 AM
I'm awfully tired to be doing this kind of heavy lifting, but the simple and foolish equation of freedom with lack of duty is a big problem in understanding what eighteenth century liberals wrote. They made distinctions, and one is between the absolute freedom of the state of nature, which cannot survive when met with organized opposition, and the freedom of the citizen who has delegated some freedom so that he can retain the rest even in the face of opposition. Liberty consists in making the best social bargain and gaining the maximum amount of freedom for what you pay.

Agree.

Therefore, one delegates certain powers to the government because the result is more free than not. In a state of nature, you are free to take another's goods, if you have the strength. That is a kind of freedom, but in practice it does not lead to freedom for any but the strongest. Real liberty is when the weak take an oath obligating all to defend each, so that when the strong man comes again to take one man's goods he is repulsed by all. Did the others lose freedom? Yes, they were obligated by their social compact to stop using their time to benefit themselves and come to the aid of another. But because each benefits in turn, the freedom that remains is robust. It survives conflict in a way that absolute, naive freedom cannot. This seems to be how the founders conceived the citizen's obligation to military service--you give up a small freedom, that is some money and some time, in order to preserve your freedom to do what you will with the rest.

Agree.

While I know why that sticks sideways in the craw of many modern Libertarians who refuse to read history as studiously as the left does, it always staggers me that this is true of gun-rights people. The left used to claim we ignored the prefatory clause of the 2A, and actually I believe there is force in this accusation, though its meaning is precisely the opposite of what the left thinks. The prefatory clause connects the private right to a particular public duty, and the existence of such duties is really what bothers what the founders probably would have regarded as pathological individualists who do not recognize themselves bound to any social compact.

I'll ignore the pathological individualists remark and agree with that too. ;)

The 2A states the reason why the the RKBA is not merely a matter of private safety but of public necessity: that when men are conscripted, they are already equipped and trained. They conceived that one of the burdens and duties of liberty is to equip ones self with the means to remain free, which means spending one's own money on arms and one's own time to be trained. Thus, the state had the power to specify the arms and the training--and the Constitution, by delegating to the Federal government the power to regulate the militia, gave the Federal government final say.

Now in the eighteenth century the states certainly had the power of conscription, so the argument of some in this thread must be that they had this power in wartime only. Once again, we have ahistorical thinking, starting with the very idea of making blanket statements about what the states can do. One doesn't know, as they were conceived to be independent nations bound in a Confederation. So if you want to say what the states can do, you must check each Constitution. The answers may be different in each state.

As for what the federal government can do, part of the powers delegated to it are the regulation, and that means training. It means that federal government has the explicit power to demand your time to take part in military training. While a burden, that is the opposite of slavery--it is the privilege of a free citizen to be responsible for the safety of his state.

For this compulsion to exist, doesn't it need to rely on the existence of the militia in the first place? The federal government hasn't been drafting people into the militia for the last 200 years - aside from possibly the war of 1812, all of our engagements that had drafts implemented resulted in the draftees going into a standing federal army - being issued federal weapons (regardless if they had their own or not) and trained to federal standards. To my knowledge those people weren't plucked from the state militias, unless you're counting the existence of the 'unorganized' militia.

It sounds like you're reading the first half of the 2A as being the authorisation for conscription in wartime or peacetime for no other purpose than to keep the militia prepared, and that preparation means having the people be armed by themselves and trained by the federal government to its standards. This is new to me; all the notable drafts that have happened in the recent history of this country (WWII & Vietnam) only occurred after the standing army was judged to be too inadequate and readily exhaustible to not have a draft. Have we, in fact, ever had conscription in peacetime?

Is that a draft? It is compulsory taking, if you will, of your private time and money in peacetime, which seems to be what people object to. But untrained citizens lose on the battlefield--so for liberty to endure you must not only be liable for wartime service, but for the peacetime preparation that makes that wartime service effective.

I do not disagree with the notion of this - that untrained people lose on the battlefield - but with standing armed forces who are always first to fight anyway, why is it further necessary to have compulsory service in peacetime for all draft age people to bolster the numbers further? I'm speaking practically here.

And this isn't what I'm fully taking issue with, my original remarks were directed at Bob Basso's assertion that we should have universal service, whether it be military or community, for everyone who comes of age, period. What would the legal, Constitutional, authorisation be for compulsory community service? I really would like an opinion or sentiment from from one of the founders on that idea, if anyway could provide a link.

If you want to say that any national service, no matter how non-military oriented, can be construed as preparing and training the militia for its proper Constitutonal role is acceptable, I would ask how that kind of stretched thin logic is any different from how the Commerce Clause has been historically abused for the improper regulation of firearms by the congress and courts.

Which brings us to the heart of the matter. The left argues for reinterpretation of the 2A based essentially on a desire to implement policies it finds good. If you wish to reinterpret it for your own policy agenda, you are implicitly agreeing to their procedure--you simply disagree on how it should be used. On the other hand, if you wish to argue for an enduring meaning for the 2A which is the law regardless of their policy preferences, then you are going to have to accept the actual original meaning, which is that the government can demand your time and even money to keep the militia in a state of preparedness, in time of peace.

If that is what the draft actually resulted in, I would be more inclined to agree. In my experience there is no such body where as you describe, citizens bring their privately owned arms, submit themselves to federal training, and then stand back and wait to be needed as an informal armed force.

guntntteacher
05-24-2009, 6:24 PM
I agree with most but the people never voted for the president it was intended to be a group of intellectuals, so the best president woudl be choosen not the most popular.

SubstanceP
05-24-2009, 6:48 PM
I have several additional/ alternative suggestions:

Social Security, like all other forms of social welfare ought to be phased out. Eliminating illegal alien access to welfare is putting a band aid on a broken leg.

Eliminate the Federal minimum wage, its a (ironically) regressive law that favors large businesses who can afford expensive labor over small businesses and makes it difficult for the market to punish states that mandate high wages.

Create expiration dates for unions; force them to face recertifying elections at specific intervals.

Force all national legislation apart from declaration of war to face strict scrutiny tests in front of the Supreme Court before they can go into effect.

Repeal the 16th, 17th and 23rd Constitutional Amendments.

Ryan

And doin' away with the Nazi Revenue Service (i.e. personal income tax) would be nice, too. :)

SubstanceP
05-24-2009, 7:31 PM
While I know why that sticks sideways in the craw of many modern Libertarians who refuse to read history as studiously as the left does....

7x57

In my view, it's not that the "left" is more educated with regard to history. I believe Libertarians, such as myself, feel grossly overregulated and "compelled" upon. That said, I guess I am much more apelike than the "progressive"/progressed.

Just my $.02. I appreciate your post. Thanks.

ps...time to read Locke again :thumbsup:

Pappy91W
05-24-2009, 8:19 PM
That was awesome!

umoja
05-25-2009, 2:15 AM
It means that federal government has the explicit power to demand your time to take part in military training.

then you are going to have to accept the actual original meaning, which is that the government can demand your time and even money to keep the militia in a state of preparedness, in time of peace.

I believe it was Alexander Hamilton who said something to the effect that militias would prevent a standing army from being a danger to the liberties of the people. Yet, you make the claim that the Federal Government can force you to serve in a militia, and imply that the Federal Government has anything to do with keeping said militia prepared. This is a little hard to imagine; a reference to the document where you read this would be helpful. As for states, in all truth I agree. States could do whatever they wanted to in terms of conscription and regulation of arms (at least until the 14th amendment came along).

motorhead
05-25-2009, 9:30 AM
guy is very well spoken.
as far as the electoral college, what's wrong with a little mob rule? that's why the nra doesn't bother with ca during elections, ca is ALWAYS democrat. if we lose the e.c. those voting otherwise will get to be counted. after all, look how well "representative" government has been working for us on a state level. the only way the PEOPLE get anything they want is by ballot initiative. the e.c. is a useless dinosaur that needs extinction.

Erik S. Klein
05-25-2009, 9:36 AM
as far as the electoral college, what's wrong with a little mob rule? that's why the nra doesn't bother with ca during elections, ca is ALWAYS democrat. if we lose the e.c. those voting otherwise will get to be counted. after all, look how well "representative" government has been working for us on a state level. the only way the PEOPLE get anything they want is by ballot initiative. the e.c. is a useless dinosaur that needs extinction.

The problem is that the number of folks disenfranchised will jump through the roof.

With a pure popular vote Presidential candidates, for instance, will only ever have to worry about the 5-10 biggest cities in the country. Everything else will be "in the noise."

Do we really want the nation run on a plank designed to appeal to NYC, LA, Chicago and so on?

I don't.