Tom Coburn: “The only way to fix Washington is to have a Convention of the States and limit their power”

It turns out that Senator Tom Coburn is a big supporter of Mark Levin’s new book The Liberty Amendments. When asked last night about this new 1000 plus page spending bill and the fact that the Senate will vote on it before anyone gets a chance to read it, Sen. Tom Coburn told Mark Levin that you can’t prevent this stuff from happening because all we have is a bunch of career politicians who only care about getting reelected. He says the only way to fix Washington is for the states to convene a Convention of the States and limit their power, something he definitely supports.


Below is Mark Levin’s full interview of Tom Coburn where he talks about the hundreds of billions we could cut right now without anyone really noticing if it weren’t for Harry Reid and Obama, who he hammers pretty hard:

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.

177 thoughts on “Tom Coburn: “The only way to fix Washington is to have a Convention of the States and limit their power”

  1. Sometimes Sen. Coburn does things that bewilder me and other times I think he does great things.
    Supporting the call for a states’ constitutional convention to pass the liberty ammendments or any other necessary ammendments such as one to abolish the income tax and the IRS is something that is great that he is doing.
    John Craven
    New Orleans

  2. The Problem:

    Our nations destruction is baked-in with the 16th & 17th Amendments, the first is the identity and re-distributional politics of the largess that each party plays thanks to the 16th Amendments gorging on the fruits of the “peoples” labor through the income tax.

    The other is popular election of Senators, has anyone ever asked themselves how many politicians of modest means and good character go to Washington and within a short time become millionaire’s? All because they can inside trade on information they receive in the performance of their duties, whereas if we do this same behavior we are subject to prosecution and a lengthy prison sentence.

    Just ask Martha Stewart about this.

    So to bottom line it, the income tax allows politicians a bottomless well, or ocean of money to but votes from their constituents, then they can legally act on information to make themselves rich. The best part of course is that for most of the time they do nothing though act as if they are, then every election season they collectively come back to the electorate and lie again, with the voters doing their duty and re-electing them…

    Why should they change a system that is personally enriching them while we support this madness with our silence…is it any wonder that they hold us in contempt?

    A Check on Federal Powers:

    One of the issues that has clouded our Republic is the problem that the 17th Amendment created, since the Senate is now an Uber House with six year terms, thanks to Harry Reid and his Nuclear Option.

    Prior to this Senators were appointed, recalled and directed in their legislative efforts and voting by the States Legislatures, these are the same bodies that approve a Constitutional amendment and so Senators traditionally were looking out for the States interest at a heightened level as a check on federal powers, that is now non-existent.

    Now that Senators are subject to “Popular” election they are open to national ridicule and scorn and so are less likely to act with boldness and deliberation as they were able to prior to the 17th amendment, as they simply represented the States and not the People!

    A perfect example of this failure is the wretched Senator and Obama toady Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

    After all a complete State Legislature (House & Senate) passing judgement on the qualifications, ethics and demeanor of a Senator is a completely different thing than the people at large. The people in general usually pass a superficial judgment on the latest narcissistic wonk that wants all the unbridled power that goes along with seat in the Senate by making one silly promise after another which the electorate continually fall for…after all Obama was originally elected to the U.S Senate, enough said.

    The Money Side:

    When the 16th Amendment is repealed and ratified our entire federal bureaucracy and Washington’s overreach would be immediately eliminated and the POWER would revert to the States…and the PEOPLE as the Constitution intended.

    It would also have the added benefit of breaking the disgusting hold of the LEFT and the DEMOCRATS propensity to create divisive electorate groupings based on anger, envy, sex, income, race, creed, religion, national origin, sexual orientation and eliminate CLASS WARFARE that they set against the nation and it’s people. And ultimately their ability to re-distribute the nations treasure and the citizens personal incomes, wages and labors as they see fit regardless of the destructive consequences these politicians create and could care less about.

    It would simply obliterate the LEFT and their destructive politics based on other peoples incomes!

    A Plan of Action:

    This can only come about through a Grass Roots effort since expecting the political masters in Washington to do this is against their nature and own self-interests as shown above.We have had 100 years of these nation destroying amendments and the power of Washington has grown to threaten the sovereign powers of the States and more importantly the People themselves…

    These amendments can be repealed in a manner similar to the 21st Amendment in Sec.3 by conventions of the “people” in the Several States through an Article V amending convention.

    In Liberty

    God Help Us…Molon Labe!

    1. Thank you for taking the time to write a thoughtful piece. This corruption of our politicians filters right down to 90% of stupid Americans who never look at anything beyond their own self interest and their own agenda.
      We are indeed screwed because Americans have lost the connection with our constitution, the progressives have manipulated our education system to serve up only progressive pap to kids from kindergarten on up and the parents are just too self absorbed to pay attention or care. Again TY

    2. That screaming deal was removed by a recent bill, wasn’t it? But nothing is in the cards to prevent them from accepting money from lobbyist!

  3. The constitution needs to be reaffirmed as instituted not modified. Screw the atheist’s, Muslim’s, abortionist’s destined for the hottest place in hell, any illegal anybody’s. The “poor” bastards that are on unemployment for almost 2 years, too damn lazy to do a different job. If your criminal parents brought you here illegally as a baby, tough noogies. Go back where you came from and get in line or just off yourself and save us a lot of paperwork, we don’t want or need you. If you have to sneak into a place that means you are not welcome there. Just like stealing a Presidential election twice because he caters to the freeloaders and the bottom of the barell, if you voted for Obama you owe America an apology you ignorant moron.

    1. Establishment Republicans are doing the work of Obama as we speak. House Republicans are trying to get AMNESTY passed. All the while they deny it profusely. They have the only power Republicans have in DC and these idiots want to help Obama complete the transformation of our country. They are ready and willing and we need to get involved to stop that. Yes of course they continue to say they are Conservative and would never want to give AMNESTY to anyone who has “willfully” entered the country illegally. That’s when they pull out the we gotta give the “DREAMERS” AMNESTY. They didn’t break our laws. They are here by no fault of their own. Of course they would never want to break up the family by denying the entire family AMNESTY as well. And there you go we’ve got 30 million illegals given citizenship. The Chamber of Commerce has demanded the Republicans give legal status to how many low income workers? I found out the other night that tax payers, who could possibly lose their jobs when they can pay Hispanics less for the same job, will be expected to compensate the low wages with tax dollars. Boehner doesn’t work for the American citizens, its the big corporations and the Foreign Nationals. I don’t know about you but as a middle class family, have less buying power today with what’s going on and in DC it looks like they don’t give a flip. And didn’t “Conservative” Paul Ryan sign on to more taxes for us and more spending? We must take our power back. These power hungry thugs care only for staying in office and will do whatever it takes.

      1. I am all for nullifying the bad amendments.. We need to make sure that “LAWYER SPEAK” is not used.. it must be plain and simple english that we all can understand..We must eliminate the convoluted meanings..Straight talk..

  4. There is no reason to modify our CONSTITUTION ! ! With the proof in on how much our votes count, why would you want to open the door for the left to finish destroying it. Oh that’s right the vote of the people would prevent that. Right. Our votes have worked so well to prevent the socialism we are being subjected to now. No need to amend it just start living by it as it is now, that is all that is necessary.

    1. I think you misunderstand Mark Levin’s amendments proposal, if you’re saying you’re against any amendments. Get his book and read it. He wants to re-enthrone our founding principles by “un-amending” the ways the statists have been amending it all along – putting into the Constitution by creative interpretation things that were never intended. They’ve created a ruling class of permanent politicians and unelected bureaucrats, and they need to be thrown out so that we can get back to the way this country was founded.

      1. It is sad that the people are so unaware and undereducated when it comes to the power that politicians have and the extent to which they are abusing that power, myself included. I am proud of the work Coburn is doing to cut spending and hope that him resigning is the right thing to do.

  5. Pretty much thought their power was already limited by the existing Constitution, but I get his point.

  6. Do people forget the States elect the POTUS and they elected Obuma twice. You want them to call an Article 5 Convention to Amend the Constitution… Are you nuts!

  7. Con-Con is not the answer. There are many drawbacks, which already have been addressed in other posts. A more constitutionally legitimate alternative is state nullification, which merely states that the Federal Govt shouldn’t have a monopoly on interpreting the Constitution. I fear Sen. Coburn is simply an opportunist trying to accommodate himself to the prevailing consensus. If you’d like to admire a Senator (potential, but guaranteed at this point) look up Greg Brannon from NC.

    In addition, Levin refuses to debate anyone who supports state nullification. Tom Woods offered to debate him on the subject where the loser would pay $10,000 to the charity of choice of the winner. I urge Levin supporters to plead to him to engage Tom in the debate. Then, finally, Levin will be exposed.

    1. Once again, wouldn’t that require a Federal government willing to HONOR states that pass nullification? Therein lies the same problem.

      1. I say no. The Constitution is a creation of state ratifiers. Therefore, the Federal Govt–being the creation–doesn’t have the authority to delegitimize its creator–the States.

        History shows us that when states do cite state nullification the Federal Govt doesn’t prosecute. Latest example is legalization of marijuana in CO. Just one, there are many more.

    2. Anyone talking about a “Con-Con” isn’t even close enough to the facts to have a rational discussion.

      First learn what the Article Five Convention is. Then get back to us.

      1. They’re the same thing! Constitutional Convention=Article Five Convention. What exactly do you think I’m talking about? Are you going to bother addressing my other points, or just insult me further?

        1. They are not the same thing. Get up to speed if you want to discuss it. We discuss this here every Monday.

          Why would you decide that was an insult? It’s a fact of logic. Doesn’t matter who is involved.

          1. We’re saying the same thing! A state convention to propose amendments. REGARDLESS, it’s semantics anyway. Care to address my other points?

            1. It’s not semantics at all. You really should learn the difference.

              Nullification won’t work. It’s not legally defined, it’s not “ratifiable” and it is in the same box a secession when it comes to problems.

              The Amendments convention is fully legal, involves a convention of states exactly like we have had many times before in our history.

              This nonsense about “opportunist” and “expose” is way out there in fringe territory. It has no place in this debate.

              1. States have also cited nullification many times is our history. It doesn’t require amending the Constitution. It allows the States to interpret the Constitution to limit the powers of the Fed Govt that aren’t EXPRESSLY delegated to them, and that’s where it’s different from secession.

                Since you’re the moderator for this site and since this site continues to glorify Levin I feel I must advocate for my own talk-show host historian-Tom Woods. He presents a very strong case for nullification that Levin refuses to respond to.

                1. Levin spent time on his program addressing nullification. He’s not some lone holdout. A lot of qualified, credentialed legal and history experts have done a lot of work in this area.

                  Nullification and secession have always had their champions, as well. Right now several of them are trying to impede the Convention of States, claiming many strange and some historically inaccurate things about it.

                  Their problem stems from weak premises in most cases, followed by an odd wish to see the Article Five Process fail. If nullification worked, most of us would be happy to see it succeed. Not so for the nullification camp, evidently.

                2. Nullification does work and I’d argue it’s a more of a legitimate Constitutional mechanism to resist unconstitutional Federal laws than a Convention of the States. It’s been cited throughout US History and will be cited in lawsuits against Obamacare.

                  It’s not like I’m afraid of the consequences of a convention. Am I afraid that we’ll have a Congress that will continue to legislate anything it wants? Am I afraid it’ll give us a court system that’ll rubber stamp anything the Federal Govt wants? Or that it’ll give the President the power to spy on people and send troops anywhere in the world it wants? No, because that’s what we have now.

                  I’ll be shocked if a state convention ever occurs in my lifetime. It’s extremely difficult to pull off. States like NY and CA will never agree to send representatives. Education about nullification is a better option.

                3. Nullification can be “nullified” by a simple court ruling. Not that it’s right, but it’s all the Progressives would need to keep on rolling.

                  Amendments are an entirely different thing. They cannot be nullified, and where they give states the power to act, they most certainly will act.

                  Nullification cannot stem the tide of the federal leviathan. It can only be used to influence SOME justices now and then. Where it is not recognized by federal courts, it would cause major action to enforce, up to and including war.

                  But if the Seventeenth amendment is repealed, and a state should decide to recall their Senator and replace him, Then he will be replaced. The Congress won’t start a war over that, and neither could the Executive branch. And that’s only one example of the power of giving states authority to act.

            2. Everyone settle down. Most likely we all want the same outcome. Smaller gov. and less meddling in our affairs by the gov. we have.

    3. Please shut up. You want us to “protect” the Constitution while its violated and the country bankrupted. You neo confederates are as big a threat as the left. Unlike you we Conservatives want the constitution and the country saved. We are using the Constitution to do it.

      1. I had a long explanation written out but lost it when I logged in on a different computer. Now, I’m too lazy to type out again what I already wrote in my debate with the moderator below. Instead, here’s this, 6 lousy min of your time:

    4. Nikki Haley has taken on the HONOR to Nullify Obamacare in her state. Lets see how that goes. I may have to move my family there. What exactly will nullification fix in DC. Nothing. These power hungry creeps are never going to change. We have got to fix this system. We can do this. Lets limit their power and take this country back.
      Victoria Jackson has a great post today on her site. The top video on her page is long but worth watching. Its a video about the Convention of States. I am inspired.

  8. I have not read the book. So I don’t having anything from the book to
    bring up. All I have is to ask if anyone actually thinks that IF amendments were made into ‘law’, do you actually BELIEVE that law (or those laws) would have a CHANCE of being applied? Would a convention REMOVE the administration in power? If not why would ANY law make a bit of difference. Obama’s administration is LAWLESS. They don’t care about laws, only in stomping on them if they don’t like them. I highly doubt they’d care what any new law through a convention had to say. They’d ignore it and walk on it just like they do with EVERY law they disagree with now. They’ve put so many rogue judges on the bench that we can’t count on THEM to carry out any amendments or laws either. I WANT to believe that there’s something we can do to change the direction things are going. But I’m a realist and reality tells me it’s TOO LATE. The only hope we have is to take the Senate and hold the House. Then MAY be we have a chance by holding on and blocking Obama’s continued attempts to destroy the nation. I frankly don’t see ANY other way. Wish I did though.

    1. Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Rand Paul and a few others aren’t enough to change things. Establishment Republicans are doing the work of Obama as we speak. House Republicans are trying to get AMNESTY passed. All the while they deny it profusely. They have the only power Republicans have in DC and these idiots want to help Obama complete the transformation of our country. They are ready and willing and we need to get involved to stop that. Yes of course they continue to say they are Conservative and would never want to give AMNESTY to anyone who has “willfully” entered the country illegally. That’s when they pull out the we gotta give the “DREAMERS” AMNESTY. They didn’t break our laws. They are here by no fault of their own. Of course they would never want to break up the family by denying the entire family AMNESTY as well. And there you go we’ve got 30 million illegals given citizenship. The Chamber of Commerce has demanded the Republicans give legal status to how many low income workers? I found out the other night that tax payers, who could possibly lose their jobs when they can pay Hispanics less for the same job, will be expected to compensate the low wages with tax dollars. Boehner doesn’t work for the American citizens, its the big corporations and the Foreign Nationals. I don’t know about you but as a middle class family, have less buying power today with what’s going on and in DC it looks like they don’t give a flip. And didn’t “Conservative” Paul Ryan sign on to more taxes for us and more spending? We must take our power back. These power hungry thugs care only for staying in office and will do whatever it takes.
      And as far as the Convention of States is concerned, watch the top video posted on Victoria Jackson’s site today. Its a wonderful explanation on The Convention of States. Because of it I have hope things will get straightened out.

  9. Dream on dreamers. The fact is our Government is corrupt to its core and as far as any Constitution is concerned totally gone rogue. Even the Supreme Court (the third Brance of Government under the Constitution) Chief Justice Roberts confirmed in his twisted illogical support of ObumaNocare that it was not his job to uphold the Constitution against the other two Branches…deferring to the voters as those responsible.

    1. Senator Mike Lee wrote a fantastic book explaining how Roberts, on 2 occasions, re-wrote the law to make it fit the government’s argument. It’s an easy read for non-lawyers.

  10. I am glad to see that some are finally coming to realize what I’ve known for many years now. But people like Levin still aren’t getting it completely. This shouldn’t be approached from a partisan or ideological basis. Nor should it be a specific set of reforms like Levin’s. Rather we need a simple enabling change so that the people can bypass and control the political class w/o having the encumbrance of convening a Constitutional Convention each time. Specifically, we do not need Amendments to be proposed by the Senate or a Convention. It is enough that 3/4 of the States adopt the same Amendment. In effect, there’d be a permanent Constitutional Convention consisting of all the People.
    So, at first that one single change. From it can flow the others are decided by the People. We Conservatives might not like every single change the People make then, but I bet we’d be very pleased on balance.

    1. You have two choices if you want to operate within the Constitution:

      1) Let Congress propose amendments.
      2) Hold a Convention for proposing amendments.

      Anything other than that is not legal under the Constitution.

      1. I don’t know how you could have not understood. I’m saying the States should call a Convention, as is Levin. But that the Convention should propose a single, purely procedural Amendment that just eliminates the requirement that future Amendments be proposed by Congress or a Convention. Instead, 3/4 of the States need merely adopt the same Amendment w/o any proposal.
        On the one hand, Congress will never propose anything that will diminish its power. One the other hand, a Convention is a lengthy and heavy process. In these times when we’re having nationwide political conversation 24/7, there is no need. The People, on their own, should be able to propose change to the States.

        1. Levin made such a proposal. But it still must come from a Convention, and conventions can propose many things at once.

          Importantly, nothing limits the number of conventions, nor simultaneous conventions, nor how the convention produces amendments needing ratification.

          My expectation is that delegates wouldn’t just toss Levin’s book on the table and ask for an up or down vote. More likely you’ll see separate products come from the convention, each of which may be ratified separately.

          If you read this article it includes more about those concepts:

          ArticleFiveProcess: A Liberty Amendments Convention versus the Balanced Budget Convention

          1. Don’t be obtuse. My point is that Levin’s approach to getting a Convention is wrong. Rather than a set of specific policy proposals that are likely to be opposed by half of the electorate, we need an enabler which they will more likely support. Once we have that and the political class is no longer a bottleneck, *then* go after the others.

            1. I wasn’t being obtuse, I was providing clear information.

              You are simply in error if you think that one single amendment is somehow going to work better than several.

              States can ratify them all in one go, ratify them one at a time, or ratify them in tranches of selected amendments. This is how the Bill of Rights came to be ten in number, when several more were on the list.

              So having one, versus having several is not a factor. Remember, this isn’t a ballot proposal. THis is something state legislatures will debate and decide. (However they can pass it off on to the people to have a convention in the state and ratify it themselves.)

      1. Maybe, but I doubt it. What is clear is that he’s been wrong about this, as he says in his book, and I have not.
        But he’s finally come partly around so there’s that.

        1. you doubt it!…hahahahaha…please post your credentials…this man will run circles around you…”the kitchen computer” is not credentials…what a laugh , thanks for that

  11. Top conservatives need to push the conv. of the states in the media, make it part of the news cycle , this will create some momentum, just like how Obama pushed his agenda, high profile conservatives need to push the convention of states agenda in the media, make it a debate. I would also make it part of a litmus test for repubs running for elections.

    1. Are you talking about MSM?? You don’t actually think they would do ANYTHING to support Conservatism do you? Seriously? They are in the hip pocket of liberal/progressives/socialists who are in love with their dictator OBAMA. Don’t EVER count on MSM for anything close to ‘fair and balanced’! That’s like the 3 little pigs trusting the wolf…

  12. But a convention of the states not only requires 34 states to convene, but it also requires 38 to pass any given amendment. That means, in any given negotiation, it is the 12th most liberal state that will have the power to get something in. By my calculations, that’s New Mexico. I can’t believe nobody here is at all concerned about this.

    1. I did not want to comment on your post, but you leave me no choice!
      First of all you must have been educated in the Common Core. Your math
      skills are lacking. Two Thirds of the States Propose Amendments, “They will all be on the same page, agreed on in advance, Then Three Fourths of the Sates will Ratify
      The Amendments to make it LAW! That will also be agreed on in advance! I
      promise if you read the books you will understand how this is going to
      happen! K Street will not know what to do! Most of the sleaze bags will have to file for bankruptcy! Thank you George Mason!!!!

      1. Its those closed door agreements ‘in advance’ that should scare the you know what out of you…totally corrupt to its core Government is no place to put your confidence.

      2. I corrected the post, thanks…but that just means you need even more states. To ratify these things. It means you need states like New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Illinois, etc. If 38 states can agree on a thing, my guess is it won’t be THAT conservative 21 states have Democratic governors. 17 states have a Democratic lock on the legislature (with another 5 split). Whatever passes will need to snag about half the blue states (plus or minus depending on what you call blue). If they’re voting for it, what does that mean for what’s in it?

    2. Read the 5th amendment. It requires 2/3 of the states to call a convention, then 3/4 of the states to ratify approved amendments. Don’t pass on misinformation.
      Since math may not be your strong point, 2/3 of the states is 34 (to bring a conventions of states for the purpose of suggesting amendments. 3/4 of the states is 38 (to ratify any amendments approved in the convention)

        1. Article V in full:
          The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

          If you can’t understand that, then you should go back to finger painting.

          1. …but I agreed with you in the last post. You need 38 states to get any amendment passed. That means the 13 most liberal states can stop any given amendment. It also risks getting the sorts of amendments that you wouldn’t want passed.

            1. That means that there has to be a consensus of 3/4 of the states to make an amendment to the constitution. If an amendment can not get that, it does not get ratified. This ensures that “bad” amendments will not pass, but the ones that make sense, like term limits for members of congress and appointed judges will get that majority easily. Getting the good amendments that everyone likes will be difficult enough to pass. Unpopular ones don’t stand a chance.

              1. That’s just it. The 3/4 requirement ensures that what doesn’t appeal to most of the blue states won’t pass. Again, we have 21 Democratic governors. Dems control both legislative houses in 17 states (and at least one in 6 others). I just don’t think ANYTHING but the most populist of amendments even has a chance for consideration. Finally, there is a belief in this country that our constitution is holy writ. Convincing the people that the founding fathers were wrong to make the judiciary independent from influence by giving them lifetime appointments is going to be VERY difficult. Can you imagine what SCOTUS would look like right now if Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Kennedy were term limited out?

                1. I don’t think it’s necessary to make a case for the founders being wrong about lifetime appointments. They just did not foresee the things have happened in the judiciary. That is why there is a process for amending the constitution through congress or through the states. I maintain that term limits are good for everyone. Yes, the ones that I agree with would be limited, but so would those I don’t agree with. The regular turnaround of judges and congressmen will serve to check people who are just there for the power and keep a flow of new faces and new ideas (good and bad) in the long term

                2. …or, the regular turnaround will ensure that representatives simply follow the playbook set by their chief donors. I can imagine term limits being very helpful of it weren’t for big money in politics. How we get that money out is still a puzzle.

                  As far as the new amendments are concerned, I must say that I’m quite comfortable with anything that passes 3/4 of the states. It’s a high bar, and if you guys can accomplish it, I won’t complain. I just don’t see states like Minnesota or New Mexico or Ohio voting that way.

  13. I support the Article V convention. However the one thing we do not have is time, especially against a government that is moving at light speed to subjugate the republic. I fear it will be way too late by the time the process can actually even begin.

    1. We pursue COS while we’re working to yank out the RINOs and Libs and replace them with conservatives.
      Levin has said this will be a decades-long process; it has taken almost 100 years to despoil our government, and to expect a fix in the short term is to invite frustration.

      1. At least in the Senate, the Tea Party has proven more successful at yanking out RINOs and replacing them with Democrats.

        1. Sigh! Tunnel vision will be the death of our country as much as anything else.
          Those who believe in the Constitution are welcome to visit TRS and learn; those who don’t might as well crawl back to their hives.

          1. I’m just citing a fact. If you want to get conservatives elected, you have to do more convincing. Telling the 51st percent to crawl away isn’t going to do it…unless all you’re interested in is the purity of a losing ticket.

  14. Well, I guess I can’t hammer Coburn anymore.
    He has cancer, and he supports a convention of the states.
    If neither of these were true, I’d be hammering him for his tough talk and weak walk.
    Prayers to Dr. Coburn.

  15. @moderators

    Keep the content coming. But I’m not really sure what the deal is with the mis quoting going on on this blog. Coburn didnt say that, nor did Obama say what was quoted yesterday.

  16. They think a law they pass will matter to the ‘Lawless One’. You people are cute. No law will fix a Dictatorship.

  17. Most of the people posting on this story so far sound like a Convention of The States will take money away from them personally. Your Alinsky tactics and posts will not fly anymore. When The States pass something like the 11 proposed Amendments Mark Levin suggests, the majority of the Tax Revenue bypasses Washington D.C. and flows directly to the States! Read the Damn Book before you post dumb ass remarks. You sound like Saul Alinsky…..

          1. Sir, Your part of the Federal Debt if you are a Taxpayer is now over $1,257,590.00 growing at about $2,000.00 per 30 days! If you don’t believe me pull up US Debt Clock and find the 2 boxes that tell you debt per taxpayer and unfunded liability per taxpayer and add them together! It’s madness!

            1. The goal of the Convention is not focused solely on the debt. Believe me, I’m well aware of the additional monies the government is anxious to steal from my family in addition to what both the STATE and FEDERAL governments take from our business every month.

              1. Again, Read the Book not some blogger that is telling you what is in Mr. Levin’s book! He understands the problem, he is brilliant and most of all he loves his Country and Most importantly he is correct about his 11 proposed Amendments! I will restate this for you one more time, Read the Liberty Amendments, You have not read it!!!!!

                1. “some blogger”? K-Bob is brilliant and has been following the Liberty Amendments and meetings from the beginning.

                2. I did not say K-Bob! There are many other bloggers and they all have an opinion, most are wrong and have no answers to the runaway federal debt and the core problems on why it is happening! Why don’t you read Men in Black, Liberty and Tyranny, Ameritopia and The Liberty Amendments! Then go to the Landmark Legal Foundation web site and spend 10 to 15 hours reading about what Mr. Levin has been doing for 25 to 35 years protecting your liberty by fighting the Progressives in the name of The United States Constitution and the framers intent! Man get up to speed if you are going to come on an adult post and make comments!

                3. You might want to check your attitude at the liberal blog site. I know more about Mark Levin and the Landmark Legal Foundation than you do.

                4. Thank you for your list of resources! I will read every one of them. But I am Mark’s age, have been involved in politics for my whole life and have been paying attention since LBJ was President! See as the youngest of 3 I remembrer my father (A Goldwater) supporter having arguments with my Grandfather (a retired federal bureaucrat of Washington D.C. ilk) and a supporter of that sleaze LBJ. I am a Reaganite and might not understand that most on this blog don’t even know the difference between George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan… My mistake and my apologizes to you!

                5. I think you’ll find that most who hang out here are very much in tune with what’s going on. I wouldn’t be shocked if 50 is the median age for commenters here.

                  We have several Vietnam vets, and lots of Reagan voters.

                6. The fact remains that our children’s children have a federal debt obligation of over $1,257,600.00 per taxpayer if the federal government never spent another dime! There is only one way to fix this problem and it rest with the State Legislator’s.
                  They have ultimate power over The Progressive Federal State and my belief is that they will act collectively before it is to late! How do you know it is to late? You wake up one morning and the $33,000.00 you have in savings will not buy you a loaf of bread at the Grocery Store because the Dollar has collapsed over night and is worth nothing! This is serious !!!!!!!

    1. When my tax monies goes directly to a state still fighting “the war of northern aggression” so they can bring about Creationism teaching & Jim Crow laws is when i get a gun!

    2. ‘flows directly to the states’? Well in that case it’s Illinois and guess where that money will go… to the BIG WIGS, not the people. Just sayin… Sorry, I’m not on a purposeful downer. I’m just stating facts and what ever money comes into my state will only fatten the wallets of Cook County crooks and the politicians in league with them.

      1. Thank God there are 49 other States! I see Greater Chicago turning into Detroit! If I where you I would move!

        1. David… I’d LOVE to move! But my daughter & her family live here (I have all of my life). We won’t move away from them otherwise we’d be OUTTA here in a NY second!

  18. I think the Convention of States is the only option for us, unfortunately. Maybe the Federal Government had to get this bad to wake us up and push us to take this step.

    If it’s not this, I don’t know what the solution will be…

  19. The States have already sold their people/citizens out to a totally corrupt lawless Federal Government… What makes anyone think new laws for them to ignore/break will solve/resolve the corruption and lawlessness. It sounds a lot like the progressives and their gun control laws nonsense that more gun laws would prevent the lawless from misusing/obtaining guns…total nonsense.

  20. The Administration already ignores the Constitution. A Convention of States gives Obama the opening to threaten the power of federal funding if State legislatures don’t do as HE has directed. Even if it is successfully amended, Obama will ignore it anyway.

    1. So let’s just throw up our hands an give up, right? Please, don’t ever think that you have the ability to lead or inspire. You are a whining negative nancy. As for me, I’ll be dead and cold before I give up on my country and principles.

      1. No one is saying that, least of all me. What are you proposing, a gun fight at the OK Corral? Experts have said the very same thing.

        If you fail to assess risks and pitfalls, you can not properly plan.

        And if you believe the ObamaBots will not reek destruction of everything in their pathway when they don’t receive their welfare and SNAP, I suggest you watch the following. IMO this was planned to warn Republicans about not passing SNAP at year’s end.

        BTW, it is not your country. The US is all Americans’ country.

      2. No one is suggesting doing nothing. The question is how will Amending (even if that very remote possibility were to have even a slight chance of not totally destroying the Founders US Constitution) a totally ignored Constitution going to accomplish what the people presently will not do.

        1. In case you missed it the Constitution is being destroyed. The SCOTUS rewriting the Constitution every summer with their judgements, obama picking and choosing which laws to follow and enforce. All I’m saying and many others too, is that we use the Constitution(Article V) to save the Constitution, but then again I’m sure you have a better plan than George Mason and the rest of The Framers had, right?

          1. Not at all. What I am saying is: In 1913 the Constitution was Amended (the 16th and 17th, income tax and Federal Reserve) at the start of President Wilson’s term. Among other disastrous Bills passed under Wilson. It is the mindset of the Nation under Obuma that scares the you know what out of me at the thought of a Constitutional Convention under the current mindset of our Nation. Forget History and you will repeat it.

  21. I trust Senator Coburn will continue beating the drums to encourage the states to convene a Convention of the States to limit the feds power and take back our country. We are at a point that we MUST fight to save our nation. We simply CANNOT ALLOW this unprecedented power grab and reckless spending to continue..or we will no longer be a free people.

  22. He is a dicotome. Some days he is all in for liberty and other days he is censuring those brave enough to take the stand publicly. I wonder if he is losing it, or if he states things off the cuff, like Rubio, then realizes later he should’ve kept it zipped. I don’t get it, though. He was a much better conservative in the past. He has begun the McCain/Graham shuffle more recently and has been outspoken in his criticism of Ted Cruz. He SAYS that is is because it is wasted effort, but if no one ever takes a stand, even when it doesn’t look feasible, when WILL these people take a stand? That is the point. You stand on principle, regardless of the supposed outcome, because you are principled. Unlike Rand Paul, who stood on some things like Cruz, but voted FOR the thing when it was not going to fail, after all. WHAT? And people think this is good strategy? That’s why I don’t trust Rand Paul, but I do Ted Cruz.

    1. Agreed, he talks a good game from time to time but in fact he was describing himself as well as most of his colleagues when he described career politicians. Why, incidentally can they not stop the wilful subversion of the Constitution? How about some spine.

      1. Coburn is also up for re-election in 2014. Does he want the voters to ignore the last 6 years and focus on this? Perhaps.

        1. Dude, you do not know what you are talking about! He term limited himself! He is not running for reelection. He is going back to Oklahoma! Mr. Coburn is a good decent man!

  23. My problem with Coburn has been that he was on the Obama bandwagon, as soon as Barry got to the Senate. In spite of all of the information available to those, who cared to read it, Coburn embraced the Marxist fully. It could have been a misguided act of bipartisanship, or a reflection of “white guilt”, but nonetheless, he and others helped grease the skids for the Chicago gangster to slide into the WH.

    1. I would suggest that in the beginning of the Nazi-Obama era, DOCTOR Coburn, a competent medical doctor, was hopeful and supportive of the potential of providing Americans with affordable healthcare. I’m confident that when Sen. Coburn realized Obama was all smoke and mirrors that he distanced himself from Obama.

      Yes, I believe it was an attempt at bi-partisanship, certainly not a “Marxist” stance on his politics.

  24. Senator Coburn was on board right from the early days that Levin started discussing it. My guess is that he knows some of the “big idea” people behind the movement, and was already up to speed.

    In an early interview with him, he was asked about Levin’s proposals, and his response was, “I’m afraid of NOT having a Convention.” He knows things have gotten too unstable to fix any other way.

    As our friends at ConventionOfStates say,

    “It’s the only solution as big as the problem.”

    1. although Coburn is apparently serious about the long term solution this country is looking for, he is weak in trying to stop the bleeding in the short term,

      he is one of those who are scared of a dem-government-shutdown That they try to blame on the GOP, and thus Rubber stamping %100 of what the dems wants (harry Ried accepts nothing less, & bohener who claims %100 of what u guys want but “no more”….)

          1. No. Look it up but I can tell you that he was for means testing for starters with a very low bar among other draconian measures to fix the mess DC made on the backs of the working man….and be aware not the rich, and not even the poor but the middle class.

            In the end he voted against the deal but showed his true colors on how he would fix the debt problem in this country which amounts to band aiding entitlements. I should tell you that in my view I think entitlement programs are un-fix-able.

            I agree with Levin…he is a good man but I have my disagreements with him. Quite frankly with the changes seen in him since the advent of Obama I think maybe he is just plain tired of the swamp.

            1. It might also be the fact that, once again, Dr. Coburn is fighting a rare form of Prostate cancer. Unfortunately there is the very possibility of Dr. Coburn leaving the senate and not finishing the last 3 years as a Senator.

              Coburn speaks the truth. Sometimes even I don’t particularly care to hear it or even believe it. But it is what it is and I only wish we had more US Senators with the integrity of a Tom Coburn.

            2. Nothing is unfixable. It is just that a fix that will actually work may be painful. Until we have people who understand how things work and are unafraid of a little pain we will still be stuck. There are infinite solutions out there, not just two or three.

              1. I agree.

                IMO the advent of entitlements began the downward slide in this country and undermined our society at every level including our humanity. doing away with them would be a huge fix at every level but also the most painful.

            3. I agree. I think he is proof of his own premise: That you go to DC and are dragged down into the insular bubble of corruption and power. He has virtually said as much. He is also suffering from prostate cancer right now.

      1. Coburn is a real enigma. Some days he’s a serious, fire-breathing conservative, and other days he’s a mild-mannered Progressive. Drives ya nuts!

        But he’s totally right about this issue.

        1. Any insight on his motivation K-Bob? He’s up for re-election in 2014. Anyone have ideas on who is going to primary him?

    2. K-Bob, I haven’t had time to catch up with your posts yet, promise I will, but quick question. Has Levin addressed how this Convention of States will be handled when Obama withholds federal funding from the states? There is a reason the federal gov’t has taken the power of the purse. We saw it demonstrated, every so slightly with the closing of federal memorials in DC and federal parks across the country.

      1. Yes, Mark Levin has addressed this question and more in his book The Liberty Amendments, maybe you should read it first before doubting it. Levin also has a radio show and a good website that is free to download current and older podcasts. Hell, I’ll mail you the book if you read it, lol.

        1. I already have his book. Unlike some, my wife and I run a business and are working on a Constitutional challenge to Obamacare so have LITTLE time to read.
          If you pay attention, K-Bob has been posting on the Liberty Amendments and my question was directed at him.

      2. It’s all about structural reform. Right now the federal system has that power to pick and choose who gets the candy. So we start removing that power legally and structurally.

        If we can at the very least repeal the 17th amendment, that would make a HUGE impact on the overall threat of witholding money.

        But more importantly, a threat of witholding money would have to be balanced against states wanting more sovereignty. California would stay stuck firmly on the federal teat, because they are in dire trouble, and their legislature is predominantly leftist lunatics. (And I write that with all due respect.)

        But a lot of purple states like Michigan would likely prefer more sovereignty, even among the Democrat side of the legislature.

        1. Thank you K-Bob, I knew you would have thought about this and researched it. I wish I could find a solid analysis of the unrecorded liabilities per state so we could see the risks that lie ahead of federal bailouts like Detroit.

          1. That would be good to have.

            Also balancing that though, are the unfunded federal mandates. Chopping those out would help the states quite a bit.

            1. I’ll see what I can find. I wonder if there might be something on federal funding per state per year for the last several years compiled somewhere too.
              Yes, the unfunded federal mandates are a huge issue. I’m thinking the 20-50 year bonded roadway projects, airports and other cap improvements in particular where the federal share is 80% or 90% and the states bonded based on future funding.
              At least state wage taxes and state UI are paid directly to states.

            2. I’m floored to learn that the late and great Milton Friedman advocated for the Article V process in his book Free To Chose, as I heard in the 3rd hour of the Mark Levin tuesday show. Do you think next monday you could segue The Liberty Amendments discussion to the Free To Chose passages? Btw, sorry to reply to an old post, just wanted your take on this. Thank you and have a good day.

  25. I have to go back to what I truly believe, and know, based on history, and that’s that the only way to fix Washington is through spiritual revival — a return of our leadership and nation back to God. The same sort of spiritual revival that gave birth to this nation to begin with. Anything short of that will end in utter futility.

    I mean think about it folks, even during the Constitutional Convention there was much infighting and bickering, and one man had to rein everyone in by reestablishing their reason for establishing this new nation. He had to remind them to return to the central Figure who would determine whether we rose or fell.

    “Mr. President

    The small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks close attendance & continual reasonings with each other,”our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes and ays, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, some we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of Government, and examined the different forms of those Republics which having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern States all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances.

    In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. ”Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments be Human Wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

    I therefore beg leave to move, that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of the City be requested to officiate in that service.” (Benjamin Franklin)

    “Mr. Sherman (from Connecticut) seconded the motion.”

    1. Change the heart and you change the man; change the man and you change the way he thinks and the way he governs. To put it more eloquently:

      “Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers.”

      Framer of the First Amendment. Fisher Ames, An Oration on the Sublime Virtues of General George Washington (Boston: Young & Minns, 1800), p. 23.

      1. Agree, Aristotle and the great thinkers since have always said no free society can continue without virtue as the paramount value of the people.

  26. Under Article V, the Constitution gives ultimate authority to the States. The States created the federal government, and ultimately the States have the power to reign it in. It’s time for the States to reassert themselves and save this Republic!

      1. Why not? Obama promised to uphold the Constitution and HE lied. One thing has nothing to do with the other!

        1. Check out the so-called Conservative Governors that sold out for Medicaid money. Might begin with Scott Walker, Jan Brewer, Christie, Kasich. Do you trust them with amending the Constitution?

Comments are closed.