Strain Out a Gnat and Swallow a Camel: How Reverse Statism Endangers the Republic

If you want to send a message to Washington, you must speak in its language. Washington only comprehends the electorate’s desires based upon the margin of victory between the winning candidate and the losing candidate from the opposing major party.

If Obama wins, third party votes will go unnoticed and unheeded, and liberals will take the victory to be an electoral mandate to buckle down on the policies we don’t want.

Third party votes do not say, “I don’t like either candidate, so I’m voting for a better choice,” but rather, “I’m comfortable enough with the way things are to spend my vote on a losing cause.”

If Romney wins, the message will be that Americans want Obama out of office NOW, and prefer the general direction that Romney is willing to take. The Romney administration will receive this as an electoral mandate to move as far away from Obama’s worldview as possible.

THE PHARISAICAL PATRIOT: "Ugh, that gnat! I'd rather be dragged through the desert than use that filthy blade." (Click to enlarge)

You might think that your one vote in a liberal district is meaningless anyway – although of course if everyone subscribed to that idea and resulting course of action, it would make a huge impact. Even popular vote-wise, every vote for Romney is a slap in the face of Obama. Every vote for a third party candidate is mere graffiti on the wall.

Many third-party voters are humble and well-meaning, and many are just angry and feeling insubordinate. Either way, I ask you to respectfully reconsider the situation. America made one of the worst decisions in her relatively young life four years ago, and to prolong it would be painful for generations to come.

I now present to you a pamphlet on the 2012 election and Mitt Romney’s candidacy. Hopefully it will answer all of your questions.

Romney praying before making a commencement speech. (Jae C. Hong AP)

But Mitt Romney’s a Mormon! (Fear not)

Our White House has been residence to Unitarians, at least one likely Deist, and multiple Freemasons. Is Romney’s Mormonism really any weirder?

Romney walks down the central staircase inside the Statehouse during a ceremony marking the end of his term as governor on Jan. 3, 2007. (Josh Reynolds/AP)

Romnesia: Misconceptions about Romney’s record

Romney is often mocked for being inconsistent. In reality, he has been consistent in a way that would be difficult for most of us.

THREE-WAY WRECK: George H.W. Bush, Ross Perot, and Bill Clinton at the second presidential debate of the 1992 election season. Due to America's mostly winner-take-all system, third parties virtually never win, but can still influence the outcome of elections. Scholars speculate that Perot's candidacy might have given Clinton victory, since Perot garnered 19% of the vote that most likely would have otherwise gone to Bush. (AP Photo/Marcy Nighswander)

Reverse statism: A reality check for voters considering third party

If you think an election that can’t be won with your ideal candidate is an election not worth winning at all, think again.

Also of interest: My research paper “Odd Ones Out: Why Third Parties Don’t Fit in the American Political System“.

Just remember: The Federal Reserve. The United Nations. Osama Bin Laden on the loose. The 2008 Financial Crisis. Obamacare. What do these things have in common? Third party voters along with conservatives and libertarians who refused to vote were complicit in their existence.

UPDATE (11/06/12): Why The Founder Of NotMittRomney.com Has Already Voted For Mitt Romney; Former Libertarian candidate: Mitt Romney is the only sane choice for libertarians.

Moral imaginations, blood libel and the meaning of words

Sarah Palin, Barack Obama

“What is government if words have no meaning?”

Such was the question that Jared Loughner asked Representative Gabrielle Giffords at an event in 2007. Unsatisfied by Giffords’ response (or warranted lack thereof), Loughner targeted her with an apparently vengeful fixation.

The budding thought processes of this anarchical philosopher-wannabe clearly had nothing to do with then-obscure Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck – nor did they have anything to do with the then-nonexistent Tea Party. According to a CBS poll, 57% of Americans agree that today’s political tone did not impact Loughner’s attack. 

It is unlikely that anyone would have seriously considered otherwise had Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik not blamed America’s political climate without evidence (disgracing his status as a law enforcement officer). Left-wing leaning media outlets subsequently seized Dupnik’s talking point with zeal and defined the debate in their favor.

However, just hours later, the primary sources that average citizens have access to via the internet flatly contradicted the politicization.

From online message boards to YouTube videos to the classroom, Loughner demonstrated himself to be a pathological riddler who was angry at the world for refusing to answer his intellectually dishonest questions. As Loughner’s incoherent ramblings and love of conspiracy spiraled downward to senseless bloodshed, King Solomon’s warning proved true – “the lips of a fool consume him; the beginning of his talking is folly and the end of it is wicked madness” (Ecclesiastes 10:12-13).

In response to the tragedy, President Obama’s January 12th speech in Tucson was a bit better than I expected. It was tender, and for the most part above-board and presidential (it is unfortunate that the hooting and hollering disrupted the atmosphere). Obama even dared to go off-script to emphasize that political rhetoric – and “a simply lack of civility” – did not cause the Tucson massacre…

Click here to continue reading at The Washington Times Communities.

Nonsense: Politicizing the tragedy in Tucson

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Jared Loughner

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) remains in critical condition after being shot in the head by Jared Loughner on January 8, 2011. (GiffordsForCongress.com/Mamta Popat, AP)

The atmosphere surrounding the Tea Party has been ruthlessly blamed. But assassination attempts and lone gunmen are not 21st century phenomena. What age-old train of thought did Jared Loughner actually express?

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) was greeting constituents during a “Congress on Your Corner” meeting at a Safeway supermarket in Tucson, Arizona on Saturday morning when bloodshed interrupted. Lone gunman Jared Lee Loughner (age 22) shot Giffords in the head and continued the rampage by shooting a total of 19 people, murdering at least 6.The dead include conservative U.S. District Judge John Roll and nine-year-old Christina Taylor Green.

Attempts to politicize the horror came absurdly fast. On the internet, opponents of the Tea Party movement could be found lambasting Sarah Palin and other conservative communicators for inciting the attack.

They spoke too soon, of course. Loughner turns out to be a textbook case of the social misfit suspect – who otherwise appears to be identified as a left-wing atheist obsessed with conspiracy theories. His odd mix of favorite literature includes “The Communist Manifesto” and “Mein Kampf”; he also posted a video on YouTube that scrolls the following words (amidst other incoherent ramblings):

“If I define terrorist then a terrorist is a person who employs terror or terrorism, especially as a political weapon.

I define terrorist.

Thus, a terrorist is a person who employs terror or terrorism, especially as a political weapon.

If you call me a terrorist then the argument to call me a terrorist is Ad hominem. You call me a terrorist.

Thus, the argument to call me a terrorist is Ad hominem.

Thus, the argument to call me a terrorist is Ad hominem.

Every United States military recruit at MEPS in Phoenix is receiving one mini bible before the tests.

Jared Loughner is a United States military recruit at MEPS in Phoenix. Therefore, Jared Loughner is receiving one mini bible before the tests.

I didn’t write a belief on my Army application, and the recruiter wrote on the application: None.

…In conclusion, reading the second United States Constitution, I can’t trust the government because of the ratifications: The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar.

No! I won’t pay debt with a currency that’s not backed by gold and silver!

No! I won’t trust in God!”

We’ve heard this Luciferian logic before. Just last year James J. Lee (the Discovery hostage taker) expressed the same no God, no government, no master but my oh-so-enlightened-self mindset before bringing an end to his own life. Such was the mindset that plagued the disturbed minds of Timothy McVeigh, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold and the leaders of totalitarian regimes. It is the very insane villainy that King David lamented in Psalm 14 and Psalm 53:

The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God”. They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; there is no one who does good. The LORD has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one. (Psalm 14:1-3)

That passage of Scripture isn’t talking about any civil, genuine skeptics out there. Rather, these fools are the megalomaniacs who despise authority in all shape and form, beginning with hatred against God, the ultimate higher power…

Click here to continue reading at The Washington Times Communities.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Primary sources matter. Loughner disliked Giffords in 2007, BEFORE Sarah Palin appeared on the national scene and the Tea Party erupted.

UPDATE – 10:42 P.M. – More information on Loughner from the Associated Press:

TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) — At an event roughly three years ago, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords took a question from Jared Loughner, the man accused of trying to assassinate her and killing six other people. According to two of his high school friends the question was essentially this: “What is government if words have no meaning?”

Loughner was angry about her response — she read the question and had nothing to say.

“He was like … ‘What do you think of these people who are working for the government and they can’t describe what they do?’” one friend told The Associated Press on Sunday. “He did not like government officials, how they spoke. Like they were just trying to cover up some conspiracy.”

Both friends spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they wanted to avoid the publicity surrounding the case. To them, the question was classic Jared: confrontational, nonlinear and obsessed with how words create reality.

The friends’ comments paint a picture bolstered by other former classmates and Loughner’s own Internet postings: that of a social outcast with nihilistic, almost indecipherable beliefs steeped in mistrust and paranoia…

…Loughner had at least one other contact with Giffords. Investigators said they carried out a search warrant at Loughner’s home and seized a letter addressed to him from Giffords’ congressional stationery in which she thanked him for attending a “Congress on your Corner” event at a mall in Tucson in 2007. Saturday’s shooting occurred at a similar event.

Other evidence seized from his home included an envelope from a safe with messages such as “I planned ahead,” ”My assassination” and the name “Giffords” next to what appears to be Loughner’s signature. Police say he purchased the Glock pistol used in the attack in November…

…Mistrust of government was Loughner’s defining conviction, the friends said. He believed the U.S. government was behind 9/11, and worried that governments were maneuvering to create a unified monetary system (“a New World Order currency” one friend said) so that social elites and bureaucrats could control the rest of the world…

…An ardent atheist, he began to characterize people as sheep whose free will was being sapped by the government and the monotony of modern life.

“He didn’t want people to wake up and do the same thing every day. He wanted more chaos, he wanted less regularity,” one friend said.

The friends said Loughner told anyone who would listen that the world we see does not exist, that words have no meaning — and that the only way to derive meaning was during sleep. Loughner began obsessing about a practice called lucid dreaming, in which people try to actively control their sleeping world…

…When other students, always seated, read their poems, Coorough said Loughner “would laugh at things that you wouldn’t laugh at.” After one woman read a poem about abortion, “he was turning all shades of red and laughing,” and said, “Wow, she’s just like a terrorist, she killed a baby,” Coorough said.

“He appeared to be to me an emotional cripple or an emotional child,” Coorough said. “He lacked compassion, he lacked understanding and he lacked an ability to connect.”

Cates said Loughner “didn’t have the social intelligence, but he definitely had the academic intelligence.”

Read more here.

UPDATE – January 16, 2011 – Ann Coulter pointed out that some inaccuracies may be in that report:

“In the most bald-faced lie I have ever read in The New York Times — which is saying something — that paper implied Loughner is a pro-life zealot. This is the precise opposite of the truth.

Only because numerous other news outlets, including ABC News and The Associated Press, reported the exact same shocking incident in much greater detail — and with direct quotes — do we know that the Times’ rendition was complete bunk.

ABC News reported: “One Pima Community College student, who had a poetry class with Loughner later in his college career, said he would often act ‘wildly inappropriate.’

“‘One day (Loughner) started making comments about terrorism and laughing about killing the baby,’ classmate Don Coorough told ABC News, referring to a discussion about abortions. ‘The rest of us were looking at him in shock … I thought this young man was troubled.’

“Another classmate, Lydian Ali, recalled the incident as well.

“‘A girl had written a poem about an abortion. It was very emotional and she was teary eyed and he said something about strapping a bomb to the fetus and making a baby bomber,’ Ali said.””

Read more here.

Coons vs. O’Donnell: Does questioning evolution violate U.S. Constitution?

Photo from Widener University School of Law

Photo from Widener University School of Law

The First Amendment commotion that appeared during the Widener Law School debate between Coons and O’Donnell was initiated by a bogus premise.

Once again, the question of evolution was brought up in the race between the Senate candidates of Delaware, Chris Coons and Christine O’Donnell. The recurring theme of science education and religion is a bewildering campaign topic that has prompted some observers to ask, “So why is Christine O’Donnell spending more time on religion than on taxes?”

It was actually atheist Bill Maher who made religion a trending election topic in the first place. To figure out who revived it, I decided to look past the all-too familiar sophomoric laugh track clip and see what was really going on in that recent debate.

About ten minutes into the debate (which can be viewed in its entirety on the Widener Law school website), the doomful diversion was pitched in the crossfire round by none other than the Democratic candidate himself:

COONS: I have a different view of the Constitution, as does the vast majority of the American public, and many current legal scholars. But the larger point Ms. O’Donnell, really, is that you’re not coming clean with the Delaware voters about what your real views are. As we saw in the CNN debate, you repeatedly ran away from answering clear, concise questions, whether from the moderators, from me, from students – to be clear about what your views are on a range of very important issues on which you would have to pass as a U.S. Senator. To say, for example, that it’s really a question of local control whether a school district teaches science or teaches religious doctrine misses the basic question. As a repeated candidate for the United States Senate you have made public statements on everything from choice, individual liberty, evolution and others that I do think our voters deserve to hear a clear answer from you on…

O’DONNELL: Great, let me clarify your remarks. Mr. Loudell’s question was about marriage, not necessarily about the so called “right to privacy”. Now you say that you have a different view of the Constitution. I would agree with you that you do have a different constitution, because in the CNN debate you stated that there were three constitutions, and you don’t need to go to any kind of Ivy League school to know that we have but one Constitution – and in all of my remarks it is said that that one Constitution is the Constitution that I will defend. I’ve made my positions very clear. Everybody knows where I stand on issues. But even where I stand on certain social issues, I will defend our constitutional right to disagree, and I have made that very clear. Our Constitution is not in opposition to my personal beliefs, and it’s not in opposition to someone who might have a different position on these social issues than I do. Our Constitution protects our freedom to disagree.

COONS: That’s right, and I’m grateful for this chance to continue to disagree. I just hope you’ll come clean with the folks of this State and the listeners to this debate…

O’DONNELL: I have come clean on every position.

COONS: …about what your real views are. Well then, answer the question. Do you believe in evolution?

O’DONNELL: What I think about the theory of evolution is irrelevant because I will defend…

COONS: Again, you’re dodging the simple question. It’s a settled scientific fact.

O’DONNELL: No listen, let me ask you – what is the relevance on that other than campaigning on Sunday mornings (which you tend to do) going to the churches, and you know – do you disagree with the positions that those several churches that you’ve been attending? I mean,

COONS: I believe that…

O’DONNELL: Are you going to tell them that you’re going to…

COONS: …churches have…

O’DONNELL: …show up just to get their votes?

COONS: …the absolute right to believe what ever religious doctrine they wish to. But you cannot impose…

O’DONNELL: And do local schools have the right to teach that?

COONS: They do not. Public schools…

O’DONNELL: Local schools do not have the right to teach what they feel…? Well there you go.

COONS: Religious doctrine does not belong…

O’DONNELL: You want a Senator who is going to impose his beliefs?

COONS: …in our public schools.

O’DONNELL: Talk about imposing your beliefs on the local schools. I’m saying that if a local community wants to teach the theory of evolution, it’s up to the school board to decide. But when I made those remarks it was because a school board also wanted to teach the theory of intelligent design, and the government said that they could not.

COONS: That’s right.

O’DONNELL: You have just stated that you will impose your will over the local school district, and that is a blatant violation of our Constitution. Do you want a Senator who is going to do that?

COONS: To be clear Ms. O’Donnell, I believe that creationism is religious doctrine and that evolution is broadly accepted…

O’DONNELL: How about the theory of intelligent design?

COONS: Creationism – which you like to call it “theory of intelligent design” – is religious doctrine…

O’DONNELL: No, they’re two different things.

COONS: …Evolution is widely accepted, well-defended, scientific fact – and our schools should be teaching science. If we want to instruct our children in religious doctrine, or religious practice as my wife and I choose to, that’s wonderful. That’s what our churches are for, and that’s what private or parochial schools are for. But our public schools should be teaching broadly accepted scientific fact, not religious doctrine.

O’DONNELL: Wow, you’ve just proved how little you know not just about Constitutional Law, but about the theory of evolution – because the theory of evolution is not a fact, it is indeed a theory. But I’m saying that that theory – if local school districts want to give that theory equal credence to intelligent design, it is their right. You are saying it is not their right. That is what has gotten our country into this position – the overreaching arm of the federal government getting into the business of the local communities. The Supreme Court has always said it is up to the local communities to decide their standards. The reason we’re in the mess we’re in is because the so-called leaders in Washington no longer view the indispensable principles of our founding as truly that: Indispensable. We’re supposed to have limited government, low taxes…

COONS: Ms. O’Donnell, one of those indispensable principles is the separation of church and state.

(Moderator MACARTHUR interrupts briefly)

O’DONNELL: Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?

COONS: It’s in…

(Uproarious laughter)

COONS: …no, an excellent point…

MACARTHUR: (Responding to laughter) Hold on, hold on…

There are so many things wrong with that exchange that it’s challenging to decide where to begin.

It was bizarre enough that when Coons attempted to force O’Donnell to “come clean” on the issues, he thought O’Donnell’s views on evolution were what the voters needed to hear most. But Coons almost doomed the debate to nonsensicality with this bogus premise and deduction: Any academic opinion contrary to Darwinian evolution is religious doctrine. Therefore, allowing any academic opinion contrary to Darwinian evolution to be taught in public schools is a violation of the First Amendment.

O’Donnell was correct in differentiating between creationism and the theory of intelligent design. The latter is not a religious doctrine, but rather a scientifically informed opinion that perceives intelligent design to be the most plausible way to describe the complexities of life. For instance, biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins says that intelligent design by extraterrestrial beings could possibly be a plausible idea derived from scientific observation.

Creationism, on the contrary, is the belief in a particular supernatural Creator that initiated the design seen in the universe. Creationism encompasses historical and cultural data as well as scientific data, which sets it apart from mere intelligent design.

Creationism as a whole doesn’t need to be taught in the public schools. But to avoid teaching the flaws of Darwinian theory – including the not-so-flattering data and dissenting voices in the scientific establishment – has nothing to do with upholding the First Amendment. It has everything to do with bigotry and disregarding academic freedom.

Coons argued for the validity of the evolutionary theory because he thinks it is “widely accepted, well-defended, scientific fact” (yeah, and so was Aristotelian natural philosophy for about 1,900 years). He isn’t keen on tolerating dissenting views in politics, so Coons’ simple-minded approach to science is not surprising (though he would probably suddenly find room for tolerance in public schools if Islam was the topic at stake).

Coons has demonstrated himself to be a puppet of left-wing, politically correct ventriloquists. He thinks that the Obama administration made the right choice on health care, the stimulus and the jobs bill – the very things that have most Americans up in arms right now.  No wonder Coons has resorted to taking advantage of the liberal media’s cheap attack on the Tea Party movement: “Clueless Christian extremists one step away from Timothy McVeigh” (the terrorist who, ironically, was agnostic and said that science was his religion).

Yet what is most disturbing is to see a senatorial candidate essentially define public skepticism of Darwinian theory as a violation of the U.S. Constitution (the original authors of which, incidentally, did not likely believe in evolution).

Fallaciously – but smoothly – Coons invoked the legendary notion of “Separation of Church and State” to seal his case. Everybody from Rush Limbaugh to Dictionary.com has since doled out a response, clarifying that the famous phrase, of course, is not mentioned in the First Amendment.  That Amendment simply makes it clear that the United States is not to have a state-sponsored religion, nor is it to prohibit the free exercise of religion (among other things).

Furthermore, the separation of these two important aspects of society can mean different things. In an ideal world, Church and State function in separate domains without interference. For instance, Church should not orchestrate imprisonment, capital punishment, etc. and State should not have to be burdened with ministering to the poor. Thus, “Separation of Church and State” is reasonable systematically.

But ideologically, one cannot separate Church from State anymore than one can separate soil from trees. President George Washington himself said that “Religion and Morality are indispensable supports” of government (there are your indispensable principles, Mr. Coons). It is futile to attempt to purge the presence of faith and independent thought from public affairs.

As O’Donnell said, “the overreaching arm of the federal government getting into the business of the local communities” is far more threatening in this country than Christianity or a non-Darwinian scientific opinion.  Most voters ought to be aware of that.

Read more of Amanda’s column Not Your Average Read in the Communities at The Washington Times.

The Tea Party: An Independent 3rd Party In The Works?

Tea Party Storms WashingtonSome readers of Sincerely Amanda might remember the satirical literary lashing I gave to third-party candidates, their supporters and any who refused to vote in the 2008 Presidential Election.  Well, I called it like I saw it regarding any who turned their noses up at McCain-Palin and consented to letting Obama-Biden stroll into the Executive Branch without a fight, and who said that both tickets were equally liberal.  I was so beyond unimpressed, in fact, that I said I would never marry a man who acted that way in the critical 2008 Election (hahaha).  I said the rejection of the Two-Party system was contrary to American Government and History.  After two semesters of college-level American history and some Government, there is a lot I understand now that I wish I had articulated then.  It turns out that I was more accurate than I realized.

Because of the majority-minority structure in the House and Senate, we will probably always have the Republican and Democrat platforms.  It is necessary for orderly function.  But how did it come to that?  Wasn’t the Republican party once an Independent Third Party that jumped out of nowhere and changed the political scene?  Not exactly.

As I mentioned in my article over a year ago, the dynamic of the young nation was quite different.  There were indeed two established parties, the Whig party and the Democratic party.  But the Whig party was disintegrating, and the Democratic party was sharply divided.  The rifts had begun at least eight years before 1860, and with Senator Douglas’s introduction of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 (which, on a basis of popular sovereignty, disregarded the anti-slavery boundaries established by the Missouri Compromise), the second-party system flew into a tizzy.  Both parties practically split in half over the new bill.

So, some coalitions opposing the bill thought they saw an opening for a new party.  The Republicans?  No, think again.  Can’t think of anybody?  It’s because it was a group of anti-immigration, anti-Catholic conspiracy theorists that tried to start an independent third-party to change the country and didn’t get very far.  The Know-Nothing party, as it was called, held parties promoting American nativism and included members of the secret fraternal organization, the Order of the Star-Spangled Banner.  Members of that organization were instructed to respond, “I know nothing” whenever they were asked about it, hence the funny party label.  They later tried to call themselves the American party instead, but for the most part they remained a bunch of nobodies that just couldn’t make the vision work.

Meanwhile, some experienced and prominent political leaders put their support behind a movement that was forming within the dissolving Whig party.  Since former Democrats who were interested in joining refused to “march under the Whig banner or even support any candidate for high office who called himself a Whig,” as my history textbook says, the members of the new Free-Soil movement chose the title of Republican.  In retrospect, it has since become a very fitting label.  It is resurrected from the days of Thomas Jefferson, when the Jeffersonian Republicans supported conservative ideals such as federalism, small government, State’s rights, and investing in America’s natural resources (Jefferson was an agricultural man who loved living off the land!).

By the time of the 1860 Presidential Election, the political establishment was so wacky that there were essentially two different two-party races taking place in the country – one between Lincoln and Douglas in the North, and another between Breckinridge and Bell in the South (Lincoln wasn’t even on the ballot in the Southern States).  That bizarrely fractured party-politics scenario allowed the Republican movement to mature into a fully developed political party with a leader already in the White House.

What can we learn from this American history?  Well, I don’t believe in trying to water everything down into a man-made formula, because as soon as we think we have everything figured out, we have a tendency to forget to rely on GOD for immediate divine answers and intervention.  But it does appear to me that there is a reputable indicator:

In order for a third-party movement to rise to power in a nation whose political core is a second-party system, the third-party must supplant one established party that is dissolving while the other established party is sharply divided, and both established parties are looking increasingly similar.

That was the case with the Republicans taking over the Whig party in the days when the establishment consisted of Whigs and Democrats.  The Republican label will probably still have to exist for a good long while for the sake of orderliness, but we can modify it.  We’re Conservative Republicans, Constitutional Republicans, and Tea Party Republicans (maybe even Jeffersonian Republicans after all!).  Right now, the Republicans are realizing that they will dissolve if they become anymore like the Democrats, and the Democrats are likely to become sharply divided over the Obamacare issue (depending on how low they can go).  Though most of us conservatives already knew, it is becoming increasingly obvious that President Obama’s ideology barely even touches the fringe of mainstream American political culture, including that of those who lean to the left.  He might have the potential to lead some other country, but America just doesn’t fit him.  As the Owenites and followers of Fourier lamented in the 1820s and 1840s, Americans are just too individualistic and independent to adapt to socialism!

So fellow Americans who are Taxed Enough Already, let’s not be a bunch of Know-Nothings.  We don’t need to try to build our own independent little fort out in the wilderness with sticks and stones and conspiracy glue.  Especially not when there is a Republican mansion being emptied and disordered that we might as well seize.

Ready.  Set.  Go for it!

Taxed Enough Already

“Is it a third-party we need, or a revitalized Republican party?”

- Ronald Reagan

~Amanda~

Blog Widget by LinkWithin