Young Americans for Liberty: Are we rebuilding the wall?

Young Americans for Liberty 2009-11-17Young Americans for Liberty protest sign

Today Wichita Young Americans for Liberty held an event at Wichita State University to “protest our country’s communist tendencies and our government’s attempt to metaphorically rebuild the Berlin Wall…on our own soil.” I stopped by and took photos and video.

13 Comments

  • Showalter C.W. -

    The men in this vid are doing a great and needed job !

  • Did I miss something? Did the Wichita City Council or WDDC recently propose building a wall through Wichita?

    Yeah, didn’t think so. These guys were likely not even alive when the wall fell, or, at any rate, were way to young to remember it. Is it a metaphorical wall? If so, please explain.

  • Showalter C.W. -

    Its a new wall for a new world, in America. You know what it is RED.

  • I hope Showalter’s wife never assigned him the responsibility of explaining the metaphorical birds and bees to his children. If so, it’s likely failed at that, also. This talk of walls is pretty cryptic. Is it codeword for a revolution?

  • Drew Cranmer -

    First and foremost, I would like to thank Mr. Weeks for putting this together (and so expediently too!). We are EXTREMELY pleased with your work and cannot thank you enough for making time in your busy schedule to come by our event. Now, as you may have noticed my name is Drew Cranmer, and I am one of the students featured in this video. I may be too young to remember the fall of the Berlin Wall, but I am certainly not too young to recognize its significance. The title of the event, “Are We Rebuilding the Wall?” was meant to be thought-provoking. Sadly this is an idea that has fallen to the wayside. People would much prefer to be spoon-fed information from channels like Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and Headline News. Rather than thinking for themselves, they enjoy having people like Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Chris Matthews, Larry King, and Keith Olbermann tell them what they should think. I apologize if we confused you with our sarcastic cynicism or lost you in our metaphorical line of reasoning. There is obviously no physical reconstruction of the Berlin Wall taking place anywhere in this country, but I do wholeheartedly believe our country is inching closer and closer to socialism, communism, and statism (i.e. “rebuilding” a metaphorical wall). This is something my generation will simply not stand for. We refuse to passively sit back and allow our country, our rights, and our liberties to be taken away from us. Thomas Jefferson once said, “Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” The Young Americans for Liberty ARE NOT a group of timid men. We are committed to doing everything we can to ensure the government of this nations returns to the Constitutional principles it was founded upon.

  • Drew–

    Thanks for your explanation. I can’t say I agree with it, but, nonetheless, thanks for attempting a reasoned response. We share the same generation, there being seven years between us. Not to burst your bubble, but if the 2008 election were decided only by the Millennia Generation (18-29 year olds), Obama would have carried the Electoral College 455 to 57 (31 votes missing), and, if the 2004 election were decided by same age bracket, Kerry would have won the EC 375 to 163. New polling by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) suggests that Creigh Deeds and John Corzine failed in their election and re-election bids, respectively, because they failed to be progressive enough (and failed to excite youth voters, who 7:2 choose to vote progressive). The point being, your generation is likely responsible for installing President Obama and are likely the engines for change in this country–not only are they not standing for it, they are it.

    At the end of the day, health care reform and cap and trade may scare you, but they are not amending your freedom. They are not threatening a repeal of the Bill of Rights, and we have the institutional restraints of a federal government of limited powers to protect us against overreaching. The principles of the 17 enumerated powers of Congress have long protected the individuals of this country. Health care and cap and trade both represent shifts in how we are going to approach our countries–what is being proposed is a fundamentally different approach, but the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8 gives them that ability.

    At the end of the day, many of the same arguments you make were given as arguments against the passage of the Social Security Act, the Medicare Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and a host of other large environmental protection legislation. The country and the country’s freedoms did not cease to exist; rather, we endured and thrived as a booming economy with liberties still intact. It’s easy to talk in grandiose philosophical terms, but what matters is how and where the rubber meets the road, and you’ve shown me nothing that our country is under attack from the threats you named.

  • I would say that Anonymous in the above post has a perverse sense of freedom. When I am forced to pay for someone else’s healthcare, what is that if not a reduced form of slavery?

    If the youth of today vote only when politicians are progressive enough, meaning willing to use government to supply them with someone else’s goodies, I would say that our country is in deep trouble.

  • Drew Cranmer -

    I also agree that the first “anonymous” poster has a very perverse sense of freedom and liberty. I’m not sure where exactly you got your electoral data, but the problem with your argument is that you’re assuming we continue to work under the incredibly biased and broken two-party system. The very same system that has made it incredibly difficult for a third party candidate to even get on the ballot in every one of the 50 states. Were our electoral system not so undeniably broken and our two party system so undeniably biased and exclusive, I think you we drastically different results.

    And contrary to your beliefs, health care reform and cap and trade ARE indeed amending my freedom and threatening my liberty. As a Libertarian, I believe very strongly in individual liberties and personal responsibility. The fact is that no one (not even government) has the right to initiate force or fraud upon another. Bastiat refers to this practice as legalized plunder. As the previous poster states, being forced through taxation to pay for another’s health care is nothing but redistribution of wealth through government sponsored plunder. Furthermore, trying to tax someone on the amount of their energy consumption or “carbon footprint” is a blatant infringement on individual liberties.

    The fact is that at the end of the day, the majority of the legislation passed in the last 50 years has been unconstitutional. You can try as you may to justify legislation using the general welfare clause, the commerce clause, or any of the other commonly misconstrued clauses of the Constitution, but I find it a bit ironic that you are all of the sudden trying to defend the constitutionality of legislation that clearly infringes upon the very liberties that are promised and supposedly protected under the very same Constitution.

    You obviously believe in a very broad interpretation of the Constitution and probably choose to not even acknowledge the existence of the 10th amendment. For it clearly states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.” I’m not sure how anyone has managed to misinterpret this clause; it seems remarkably clear-cut to me. And in accordance with this amendment, the Social Security Act, the Medicare Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and EVERY single other piece environmental protection legislation are clearly unconstitutional.

    On the topic of the environment, Harry Browne once said, “Most pollution takes place on government property – on government lands and roads, in government lakes, rivers, and streams. If someone dumped garbage on your property every day, you call the police and get them to stop the trespasser from polluting your property. But government allowed companies to dump toxic wastes in its lakes and streams, and to clear-cut or strip-mine its lands. Then, when public outrage became overwhelming, the government responded by passing new laws and setting up new agencies that harass companies and property owners who have always kept far better care of their property than the government has.”

    I would be happy delve deeper into the discussion of the unconstitutionality of the majority of our federal legislation, but I can save you some time by simply recommending you read the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions in addition to the writings of two of our most prominent founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Both believed very strongly in state sovereignty, that the 1oth amendment was the foundation of the entire Constitution, and that men, along with the government, should be “bound” by the chains of the the Constitution.

    Clearly we will never agree due to our differing opinions on the nature and capabilities of the federal government. I for one refuse to believe that our government is a wise, all-knowing, and benevolent entity whose sole purpose it is to protect us from ourselves. I believe not only that the government is completely incapable of this, but that is entirely unconstitutional for them to assume this responsibility. Mr Browne also stated on the topic of laws: “Every time you help pass a law you think is needed, you make it easier for others to pass a law you won’t like. Give the government the weapons to fight your enemy and it will use them against you.” Once again, I couldn’t agree more. Like Jefferson and Bastiat, I believe that the only proper purpose of government is to and protect the individual liberties of its peoples and defend them from attack both foreign and domestic. Anything done by the government that doesn’t fall within these bounds is unconstitutional and a threat to my liberty.

  • Cap and Tax ooops I mean Cap and Trade is not taking my rights away? So what about a part of the bill that allows for forced home insections? If I refuse that then what do you think will happen??? I will be fined and or put in jail.
    I am 28 years old. I did not vote for McShill or Obamination. Neither did many other younger people around me. Obama was put in by yuppies over 30. The young people who voted for him think they are owed something.

  • Kevin Streeter -

    What has not been mentioned is the requirement that I buy health insurance or be fined or go to jail. That is a clear abuse of power and a threat to my freedom. If I want to pay my doctor with my own financial resources, why shouldn’t I be allowed to? Why is that never mentioned as an option for paying for health care? Deciding what to do with our property (including money) is a fundamental right.

  • Drew Cranmer -

    Again, I agree with both Benjamin and Kevin. Cap and Tax and Health Care “Reform” are both clear infringements upon our personal liberties. Warrant-less home inspections and coercing people into carrying health insurance cannot be viewed as Constitutional regardless of your interpretation.

  • I would refer Anonymous #1 to the ‘Featured Thoughts’ on the right side of this page, to increase his/her understanding of the danger of government takeover of healthcare, cap and tax,etc.
    And I do thank the Young Americans for Liberty for this great program! Keep up the fight to retain our freedoms!

  • Mark Redeker -

    Anything any government does for you is a loss of your freedom in the most general terms, there are certain things it is impossible for you to do for yourself and that is why governments were and are formed. National defense, enforce laws, infrastructure, fire and police departments. Anything beyond these basics is governmental intrusion on your freedoms. While some people may want to be taken care of from cradle to grave, the government is only giving those people a false sense of security. Because everywhere such a system has been tried it has failed, due too far more demand (from looters and moochers) than the government can receive in taxing producers (hard working Americans in our case). Truly free societies promote self reliance and personal responsibility, which is the antithesis of what our government has been promoting for 70 plus years!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Related Posts

  • Kansas jobs since pandemic

  • Visualization: Kansas 2020 presidential election

  • Fake news: How it happened

  • Partisan Conflict Index

  • Libertarian campaign visits Wichita

  • Herman Cain, RIP

%d bloggers like this: