Elitism Versus Palinism.

Vic Biorseth, Saturday, February 20, 2010
http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com

Elitism vs Palinism discusses the scope of the anti-Palin sentiment beyond the clear and obvious opposition to the likes of Sarah Palin from the Left. Previously we talked about the Hatred of Palin, and we discussed, perhaps too lightly, the French word bourgeois, pronounced boosh-wah, in the Warning All Boourgeoisie article. What this one seeks to address is the nature of our elites, who are so infected with so many serious falsehoods which they embrace as settled science or well known facts that enjoy universal consensus – among the elites. First, some definitions may be in order.

Elitism:

1. Elevation to and membership in a perceived elite group, which may be a recognized intellectual, social, educational, wealthy, aristocratic, royal, artistic, technical, managerial, clerical, political, ruling, etc., elite class.
2. Pride associated solely with belonging to a special class or favored group.
3. Sense of entitlement for a favored group; belief that members of a favored group deserve special recognition or special treatment in society and in law.
4. Belief or practice of rule by an elite class.

Lately, the best and brightest among the American conservative movement, who are all out of talk radio, have been accurately describing what Leftists, Liberals and Marxists by other titles are, and what they do. It seems strange to have to say that conservative talk radio is leading the way back to Constitutional America, but that is precisely the situation here. The fire-brands who lit the fires of freedom anew are mainly three in number, with Rush Limbaugh leading the pack, followed closely by Glen Beck and Sean Hannity. Spontaneous popular movements from Town Halls to Tea Parties and so forth originally got their bread and butter political education from these talk show hosts.

Neal Boortz needs to be mentioned because of his outstanding development and publicizing of the Fair Tax, which is of enormous importance in resuscitating economic America. But, as a Libertarian, he has turned away from and forgotten God, and that is a path that leads to national doom. America needs the fair tax, perhaps even desperately; but she certainly does not need Libertarianism or any other form of pure moral relativism, any more than she needs to adopt pure evil.

So, thanks largely if not almost exclusively to talk radio, and in spite of the efforts of our thoroughly Marxist SLIMC to silence, oppose, dilute or drown out their core Constitutional message, America is waking up to the extreme danger posed by Obamunism. America is becoming ever increasingly aware of what Liberals are and what they do and how they intend to do it.

The remaining question is who they are against, and I’m not sure too many of the Tea Party Patriots and other American conservative movements are yet fully aware of who, exactly, Marxism sees as the enemy that it must destroy. And that is why so many do not yet understand the virulent Hatred of Sarah Palin and outright scorn publicly expressed by the SLIMC, Show Biz, the Democrat Party, professional politicians, academics and even a lot of conservatives, including Libertarians.

I mean besides the fact that they are all some variant of elitists, and Sarah is not.

Marx hated, demonized and sought to destroy the Bourgeois. Once Marxism became a cult-fad among pseudo-intellectual elites the word bourgeois became an evil social epithet; the elites began to distance themselves from bourgeois appearances, and to hold other bourgeois in public contempt. This is a purposely popularized social sense of contempt and scorn; since Marx, educated elites always seem to see the bourgeois as utterly contemptible exploiters in need of government control. Even in America.

Marx wrote against the haute (high) bourgeoisie – industrialists and financiers who make up the hated and demonized “exploiting” class of ownership and employment. Marx also wrote against the petite (petty) bourgeoisie – shop keepers and professionals who typically work alongside their own “exploited” workers. All of them were targeted for destruction.

Now, in Marx’s day, Europe in general and Russia in particular were much more agrarian than industrial economies, cultures and societies. There were many more working on farms than in factories. In fact, the largest “class” of people in Russia were the serfs, or peasants, who worked the land.

Pre-Revolution Russia was closer to an ancient feudal society than a modern one, in that there really were fixed and fairly rigid classes of people, and it was difficult if not impossible for one to move from one class to another. In fact, until recent history, Russia never even experienced free market capitalism anything like ours.

So when Marxism sought to stir up the “exploited” Russian serfs, it was talking to an overwhelming majority of the population. When Marxism sought to demonize the Russian bourgeois, it was targeting a small minority of the population. And the Revolution still came close to failure; as we said in the Marxism page, what happened was more akin to a coup than a revolution, because there were so few participants on the Marxist side – perhaps 15,000 – and so much of the vast population didn’t even know what was going on until after the Czar was dead and a new government had seated itself. It most certainly was not a popular movement by any stretch of the imagination.

But, you see, it is a different story in America. We are not a status-class society; there are no rigid social classes here. Whatever social stratification exists in America is loose; people move into and out of one class or another with relative ease. In point of fact, the largest “class” of people in America make up what Marx demonized and targeted as the petty bourgeois, which makes up our so-called middle-class, and which is virtually personified by people like Joe the Plumber, and – guess who – Sarah Palin. When you talk about the American Petty Bourgeois you are talking about the vast majority of Americans. The very ones scorned and held in contempt by elitists of every stripe today are the very ones targeted by Marx yesterday.

Where do you fit in? Americans enjoy this thing called liberty, which goes along with and is inter-dependent with free markets and capitalism. Each one depends upon the other; if the market is no longer free, you have lost the liberty required to freely participate in it, and if you are no longer free to freely participate in it, the free market itself begins to die. A free market is driven by free participants – inventors, innovators, providers, manufacturers, importers, exporters, distributors, maintenance-repair, marketers, retailers, and, most important, free end consumers. We have prospered as a nation because we are free men and the whole market is free and open to all.

The goal of Marxism is a population of equals dependent upon government.

Pro-Marxism infected formal education, which predominates in our society and most societies today, thanks to the elites, will tell you that free market capitalism is a system driven by greed. Not true. It is driven by boundless, unlimited opportunity. Marxism, on the other hand, is driven by control, and un-freedom, at all levels.

The advance of Obamunism might go like this. First, the puffed-up, self-important petty bureaucrats will come around, knock on your door, smile, and say “We’re from the government and we’re here to help you.” Later, to all those who refused help, they would come around, walk in your door, and say “We’re from the government, and we’re here to take care of you.” Later, to all those who refused to be taken care of, they would come around, kick in your door, and say “We’re from the government; shut up and get on the cattle car.” All the little jack-booted bureaucrats will have been largely recruited from the ranks of ACORN, union thugs and Chicago gangsters.

Have no fear. We have taken on and triumphed over far, far more dangerous opponents than these in our American history.

If you have a small business, even if it is not your sole income, even if you have to work another job, you are one of the hated petite bourgeois. If you take in a boarder or rent anything to anyone, you are petite bourgeois. If you partner with someone else in some enterprise, you are petite bourgeois. If you have ever, or if you plan to, or if you hope to, start your own business then you are petite bourgeoisie. If your wife has taken a job or gone to school, not so much out of necessity as out of a desire to attain to something better, you are petite bourgeois. If you have ever taken a second job or done a little something on the side to earn more, you are petite bourgeois. If you make your own way with confidence through a profession or a skilled trade, you are petite bourgeois. If your kids earn extra money shoveling snow or mowing lawns, they are petite bourgeois. If you own any stock, even through a 401K or employee-benefit plan, you are petite bourgeois. If you are or seek to be a little better off than anyone else on earth, you are petite bourgeois.

Here’s the real biggee: If you think you can take care of yourself and your family and you don’t think you need anyone else to take care of you or your family, then you are petite bourgeois. Marxism demands a dependent population, and that demands the crushing of the independent spirit, by trickery, by force, incrementally or suddenly, by hook or by crook, by any means necessary, but it must be done.

I think we all know that there are many kinds of elitists. I submit for your consideration the proposition that Marxist sympathies infect and very nearly dominate just about every kind of elitism that exists in America today.

The elitist mindset always involves superiority over the non-elite. The elite, although they might not give it much thought, automatically assumes that the non-elite are just too stupid to be able to make important personal decisions in life, and that is what the elite is for, to make important decisions for inferior others. This means that the populace is not smart enough for self-government or even self-sustenance. In the elitist view, the unwashed masses are always in need of a benign elitist ruler who is of the proper intellectual pedigree to properly take care of the people. The people just aren’t smart enough to know that, because, after all, they are not the elite.

Along comes common, bourgeois Sarah. Sarah Palin epitomizes the American independent spirit, coming straight out of the American middle class. She has a strong attachment to faith family, tradition and classical Western morality. She worked her way through college; she worked at jobs; she worked a family fishing business; she did commercial fishing, among other things. She is always bright and cheerful, and she looks you right in the eye.

As opposed to the polished elitist public appearance that is dour, aloof, polished, professorial and superior. No mainstream media hack is going to take careful, studious note of any impeccable crease in Sarah’s Carhartts, nor is he likely to feel a chill run up his leg just being in her lowly, hoi polloi, petty bourgeois presence. What they feel instead is shocked, stunned, utter contempt. Who the hell does this unwashed bourgeois think she is? National politics is supposed to be an elite game, not for a commoner like this.

It is to me incredible how many otherwise seemingly intelligent people publicly declare the typical elitist opinion that Sarah Palin is somehow unqualified as a Presidential candidate, in the face of who is sitting in the Oval Office right now. I submit that Sarah Palin is perfectly qualified in accordance with the Constitution, and that she is better qualified today than Abraham Lincoln was when he ran for President. America has had quite enough of all of the supposedly better qualified “professional” hack-politicians, Marxists, tricksters and hucksters vastly overpopulating high political office today. The people are fed up with the elites.

A poll was just published showing Sarah’s numbers falling, and a breathless media pounced on it to declare the doom of any Palin political future. The declaration is made, with a straight face, that if Sarah Palin gets the Republican nomination, that will guarantee an Obama second term.

Now, a lot can happen between now and November 2012, but I’ll tell you this. The declarations are current, and the poll is current, so, remaining current, anyone who thinks Sarah Palin would not defeat Obama in an election today is just dumber than a box of rocks. She would win in an epic landslide, running away, in all states. The notion that Sarah Palin could not possibly win an election against Obama is just plain stupid. Again, a lot can happen between now and 2012, but this is now, not then. I pray the common people will stay motivated.

The people have had it. The bourgeoisie have had it. And Sarah Palin is petty bourgeois just like us.

Being petty bourgeois makes Sarah Palin particularly qualified.

I have often said that us Right Wing Nuts have got to stick together. Us Reagan “Voodoo Economics” or Reagonomics Nuts have got to stick together. Us American Constitution Nuts have got to stick together. Us Religious Nuts have got to stick together. Us Gun Nuts have got to stick together. Us Limited Government Nuts have got to stick together. Us Free Market Nuts have got to stick together. Us Pro-American Nuts have got to stick together. Us Liberty Nuts have got to stick together. Us System-Of-Greed Nuts have got to stick together. We should accept all of the scornful titles assigned to us by the elites and wear them all proudly as badges of honor, and celebrate them.

Many champions of Communism in America thinly disguise their true spots by calling themselves anti anti-Communists rather than Communists. Well, you can call me an anti anti anti-Communist, and proud of it. Us anti anti anti-Communists have got to stick together.

Taking it to the next level, all of us American Petty Bourgeois have got to stick together. We should make the title “Petty Bourgeois” exalted, put it on T-shirts, put it on banners, march under it, and wave it in the faces and under the snotty noses of the elites. Under that banner we should then drive them all the hell out of Dodge; or at least out of political office, if not out of positions of authority everywhere.

The Limited Intellect of the Elitists. Many if not most elitists exhibit a lack of practicality, common sense and the mental skills and discipline required to do good critical thinking. They consider themselves to be intellectual, but they exhibit little intellect. Examples abound. FOX’s Bill O’Reilly “believes in” the anthropomorphic global warming hoax, which, of course, makes him just plain stupid (if not evil.) I used the term “believes in” as one would believe in God, because it comes by faith alone (or by evil complicity in the fraud.) There is absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever supporting anthropomorphic global warming and there never has been any. Of course, Bill O’Reilly is not alone in his elitist stupidity; he has lots and lots of company.

Anthropomorphic Global Warming is a well thought out, carefully designed, very well orchestrated purposeful fraud of monumental proportions. Hugely capitalized on if not invented by Al Gore, the real purpose is to cripple world-wide free market capitalism (through environmental treaties and laws like Cap and Trade) in order to advance the Marxist agenda toward a one-world government under the United Nations, while making individuals like Al Gore obscenely rich, rich beyond imagining, at our expense.

Many if not most elitists have fallen for or participated in multiple Global Consensual Frauds perpetrated by the Eco-Nazi Front. All of these elitist-sponsored and elitist-backed theories are proven fraudulent with ridiculous ease. All it takes is a little critical thinking and careful analyses of the very statements of the theory itself. Most elitists have proven they cannot do that. In fact, they originate and they strengthen and they teach the frauds.

None of these ideas originated from us lowly hoi polloi. We are the victims of the frauds; the elites are the perpetrators and the enablers and the cheering section.

How many elitists believe that the earth has a human population problem that needs to be dealt with by government(s)? Well, all of them do, of course. But we have shown in our argument refuting the false population problem that any 14 year-old kid can prove it false in about an hour or so. This one fraud feeds so many others, and it feeds evil notions, such as the one that say that HBAACOTE, that “justifies” cruel, inhuman and inhumane programs to deal with a problem that does not even exist.

How many elitists “believe in” the natural evolution of species? Well, all of them do, of course. Because none of them have ever applied critical thinking to the very things the theory says about itself. And that is all you have to do to prove the theory false. Among other things, it claims to be scientific, but, as we have shown in our brief argument Refuting Darwin, the theory has never even been subjected to the scientific method. There is nothing scientific about it. It has no empirical evidence whatsoever supporting it. It is fraudulent. It is materialistic dogma. It is supported by faith alone, for there is no real world evidence for it.

That’s elitism for you.

So, what’s Palinism? Well, in a word, it’s Americanism. She is us. She is not elite; she a regular citizen; she loves Constitutional America. She therefore would be an excellent representative of the rest of us ordinary non-elitist Americans who live practical lives in the real world and still know how to properly think for ourselves.

Where is God in all of this? None of us are going anywhere worth going without God. Let this be a word of warning to all patriots who seek to return us to our founding principles, and to Constitutional America: We are a Christian Nation. Never forget that. If you are any kind of a practicing Jew, or if you are any kind of a practicing Christian, then it is against your religion to ever put your religion aside, ever, for any reason, under any circumstance, in any environment, for any period of time, even for an instant. Do not not consider what your religion says about any decision you have to make or vote you have to cast.

Take a good, long look at the Ten Commandments carved into the very doors of the Supreme Court building (in the Church, State & Law page) for a graphic representation of the relationship of our religion-based Judao-Christian Ethos that underlies our own American civil law.

The current popular theory that the anti-abortion issue is an election looser is false. It is a lie. That’s why it has never been put on a national ballot, and that’s why the champions of abortion will do everything in their power to keep it off of any national ballot. The federal government does not have and never did have any Constitutional business whatsoever ever even addressing the issue. It is not representative law; it was not legislated law; it was adjudicated into being, and it was done un-constitutionally. The Court made new law, and that is not the job of the Court.

In the historic decisions of Roe v Wade and Dough v Bolton, the Court un-constitutionally overturned legislated, representative state law all across the land. Abortion as practiced today was illegal in all 50 states. The Court changed all that, on a flimsy, immoral whim, in direct violation of states rights, and a violent overstepping of constitutional federal authority. The thoroughly disgusting history of it is addressed in the Abortion in America page.

I submit that medically unnecessary willful abortion is not and has never been popular enough to be a decisive issue in any national election. Rather, it is unpopular enough to be a decisive issue. Any national vote would go opposite the direction of all popular predictions, and the Democrats know it. That’s why it would never have even become law at the national level by the normal legislative process, and that’s why it became law at the national level by deceit, trickery and illicit action in the Supreme Court.

A strong anti-abortion stand is an election winner, almost everywhere. It could only loose an election in a few super-Liberal localities, and might not even loose an entire state anywhere in America.

The Republican Party needs primary candidates who are bold in their conservatism and in their religious faith. In any future political contest between two candidates, the candidate who unabashedly calls his future constituents to prayer and fasting will gain a significant advantage, and the one who is too timid in his faith to do anything like that, or who opposes it, is likely to loose to the one who does it. Gigantic public howls of protest will not withstand actual election results.

If we return to our original religious moral principles, all the rest will take care of itself. More than we need anything else, we need to be a good and decent people. The economy, the unemployment, the deficit, the debt, – all of most of that will be fixed by mechanical things; the Fair Tax alone, all by itself, might eventually resolve most of the physical damage done to America by Obamunism. What America needs now more than anything else is for her citizens to turn their faces back toward God and His law, in repentance, and to seek to return to live within His ancient and unchanged Covenant.

We desperately need to return to a common, national sense of telling right from wrong, and that means a return to God and to God’s Law, in our personal lives, one citizen at a time, one house at a time. We need leaders at all levels of government who will call us to do that. There are many who will not respond; there are many who will hoot and howl against any such public call for prayer from any politician. Most of them will be Democrats. Everyone will not get on board, and that should not stop the effort. What is most important is to be on the winning side, in November 2010, in November 2012, and, most importantly, in eternity.

Seek the Truth; find the Way; live the Life; please God and live forever.

Reference Material

Return to Web Site Log (Blog) page

Return to HOME PAGE

Build/Host/Maintain Your Own Personal Website using SBI! (Advertisement)

Date: Mon Jun 07 18:57:15 2010
From: Andrew
Email: lairson007@hotmail.com
Location:
Comment:

"It is supported by faith alone, for there is no real world evidence for it.

That’s elitism for you."

Wouldn't Catholicism be elitism then?

Date: Mon Jun 07 20:53:28 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Andrew:

No, not quite. Here is the quote in a little more context:

“It has no empirical evidence whatsoever supporting it. It is fraudulent. It is materialistic dogma. It is supported by faith alone, for there is no real world evidence for it.

That’s elitism for you.”

Regards,

Vic

Date: Wed Jun 15 02:06:12 2011
From: Disagreement
Email:
Location:
Comment:

Hello Mr. Vic,

She does not have enough intelligence to even walk around a question if she cannot answer it. Tina Fey's caricature of Palin as a bumbling schoolgirl trying to bluff her way through exams was so hilarious because it hit pretty close to the center of the dartboard. The media did not play around with McCain. They could not, he knew the issues, he was too smart to fall into traps. Palin does not have the first damn clue. We need a really really tough conservative president, not a moron masquerading as one.

Date: Wed Jun 15 05:45:41 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Disagreement:

Your submission is a classic example of effete, super-elitist, condescending snobbism. I am surprised that you are able to tolerate even my ordinariness, let alone that of Sarah Palin. Clearly, your political orientation prefers rule by an elite class over citizen rule established by the Founders. See the Anti-Inellectual Sentiment page for a treatment of that rather significant aspect of the Tea Party Revolution.

If I asked you what the Kennedy doctrine was, or the Reagan doctrine, or the Carter doctrine, you might hesitate a moment or ask what particular doctrine I was asking about. Or, maybe not, if you’re some kind of genius or clairvoyant mind reader, in which case you might instantly respond with the correct answer that would completely satisfy me, the hostile interviewer. Right?

Right.

I am not impressed with professional journalists, whom I have elsewhere herein referred to as professional liars, and I am not impressed with show-biz comedians, any more than I am impressed with any other elitist clowns.

McCain is a soft Marxist. Obama is an outright Marxist. To say that someone is a Marxist is to say that he is an anti-American, seeking the end of Constitutional America. The differences between potential American Presidents were never more stark and never more clear than the differences between Comrade Obama and Sarah Palin.

And I don’t particularly give a damn what any Leftist effete snob thinks about it.

And, by the way, Lefties are supposed to have the hell scared out of them by strong Constitutionalists.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Thu Jun 23 14:42:05 2011
From: Disagreement
Email:
Location:
Comment:

Hello Mr. Vic,

1. Expecting our leaders to have a long term vision and knowledge of the issues facing this country is not snobbishness. Ultimately the future of a country is more or less dependent on her leaders. I would expect my presidential candidate to be well-educated, articulate, smart, ambitious, conservative male. If that makes me a snob, then I guess I am proud to be a snob. Megan McCain was damn right when she said that the conservative movement was being high jacked by bible-thumping morons.

2. For your information, I do know quite well what the Bush doctrine is, and what the Kennedy doctrine was, and what the Reagan doctrine was. I do not have to be a super genius to answer them. A reasonable degree of education should suffice. The Bush doctrine is the most relevant of the lot. We went to two wars in the last decade based on the premises of the Bush doctrine. Most B+ college grads can tell you what the Bush doctrine is. Having a VP candidate with no idea the doctrine says is a disgrace. After all, we are not talking about designing a nuke bomb.

3. It takes real guts to call McCain a Marxist. The man spent the best years of his life in a North Viet jail, fighting communism. I agree that Obama is more of a useless talker than a doer like Bush, but even tarring him a Marxist is stretching the truth to the breaking point. You would do well to remember that Democrats are not Islamic terrorists, merely patriotic Americans with a different set of political values than us. You clearly have no idea of what you speak of.

If Sarah Palin ends up being the Republican candidate, Obama will steamroll to a victory, again, which is the last thing this country needs. Whatever you think, this country is not split equally down the middle to gun-toting right and Marxist left. They are a lot of soft right-wingers like me, some soft left wingers, and a lot of independents. These people can never stomach a moron turned hockey-mom becoming the president. Even I would rather abstain rather than vote for Palin if it comes down to that.

I pray people like you come to your senses and support moderates like Mitt Romney. That is the only way Republicans would ever see the White House again. Meanwhile, keep on with your fantasies of a Palin victory. Maybe we will meet on this blog again after the next presidential election.

Date: Thu Jun 23 20:32:11 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

My dear Ms. Disagreement:

Referring to Sarah Palin as an idiot and a moron is indeed elitist snobbishness, of the worst order. You clearly would prefer the elite company of the likes of Katie Couric, Tina Fey and Megan McCain, none of whom even know what the word conservative really means. Perhaps you haven’t been paying attention to what universities have been turning out these days, but for your information the average American B+ college graduate today is a near semi-literate. Just take a look at Obama for an example of Americans with advanced degrees.

You don’t have the first clue what the Kennedy doctrine was, and you will have no clue until I tell you which one I’m asking about. Same thing with the Bush doctrine.

Re McCain’s soft Marxism, If it takes guts to call a spade a spade, then I’ve got the guts to do it. I said it way back in October 2008, in the 2008 Election Forecast page, and he hasn’t changed his spots since then. So what if he was a war hero? So was Benedict Arnold. The two things have nothing to do with each other. When it comes to picking a national leader core philosophy and guiding principles are far more important than military record, or any other factor.

As for Obama, his own written and spoken words clearly identify him as a died-in-the-wool, flat-out Marxist. You can read his own recorded words on the matter in The Marxism of Obama page, and in The Obama Ethos page, and probably a lot more pages and their following discussions. Obama’s Marxism cannot be denied. That is to say that Obama’s anti-Americanism cannot be denied. Marxism and the American Constitution are absolutely incompatible, and diametrically opposed.

Like a lot of elitist snobs, you don’t even know the difference between the Left and the Right in American politics. Let me give you a little elucidation. I’ve been over this ground before, multiple times, so permit me to copy here the last time, from a discussion after the Rabbi Meir kahane’s Open Letter page:

You are not the first to confuse Right and Left politics of Marxists with Right and Left politics in America. Let me again try to set the record straight regarding that.

Important figures in world politics during the rise of Nazi-Fascism and the rise of Communism were all Marxists, and said so. Such personages as Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini all were born, politically speaking, of Marxism.

The name of Hitler’s political Party was the National Socialist Worker’s Party. The only economic difference between the Nazi-Fascist brand of Marxism and the Bolshevik-Communist brand of Marxism was that the former totally controlled the owners of Capital, and the later simply nationalized all Capital. In both variants, the people were ruled by one absolute totalitarian dictator.

The only socio-political difference between the Nazi-Fascist brand of Marxism and the Bolshevik-Communist brand of Marxism was that the former was a nationalist movement that sought world control by a superior nation and race, and the later was an internationalist movement that falsely claimed to seek the end of all sovereign nations as well as the end of all private property to achieve a perfect utopia.

Nazi-Fascism and Bolshevik-Communism represent the major Right – Left argument within Marxism itself. Both despise Capitalism, private property and human liberty, and thus both see America and any entity remotely similar to America as the ultimate mortal enemy of Marxism. Within the confines of Marxist thought, American Constitutionalism is neither Right nor Left – it is simply the system that must be destroyed so that Marxism may advance. On that single point, the Left and the Right within Marxism profoundly agree.

In America, politically speaking, the Left is represented by any and all forms and varieties of Marxism, whether Nazi-Fascist or Communist-Socialist; and the Right, in America, is represented by strict and strong adherence to and defense of the American Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution. Everything Marx wrote, from Das Kapital to the Communist Manifesto, opposes the American Constitution.

Got it?

Sarah Palin doesn’t need anyone to explain that to her.

Regards,

Vic

Please note the language and tone already established in this Website. This is not the place to stack up vulgar one-liners and crude rejoinders. While you may support, oppose or introduce any position or argument, your comments must meet our standards of logical rigor and of civil discourse. We will not participate in trading insults, and we will not tolerate participants trading insults with each other. Participants should not be thin-skinned or over sensitive to criticism, but should be prepared to defend their arguments when challenged. If you don’t really have a coherent argument or counter-argument of your own, sit down and don’t embarrass yourself. If you have something serious to contribute to the conversation, please keep it civil. We apologize to religious conservative thinkers for the need to even say these things.