No Freedom From the Church of America

The religion this church administers is Americanism, a species of nationalism.


Jim Loscalzo/ZUMA Press/Newscom

One myth that Americans live by is the separation of church and state. Some like the idea; others hate it; but the irony is that church and state were not separated at the founding of the United States and are not separate now. In fact, they were united in the sense that the state is a church—the Church of America—and you can't separate a thing from itself.

The religion this church administers is not Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, Islam, or anything else that comes to mind when most people think the word religion. It's Americanism, a species of nationalism. Nationalism and religion are cut from the same cloth.

As William Cavanaugh writes in his not-to-be-missed book, The Myth of Religious Violence: Secular Ideology and the Roots of Modern Conflict:

If it is true … that nationalism exhibits many of the characteristics of religion—including, most important for our purposes, the ability to organize killing energies—then what we have is not a separation of religion from politics but rather the substitution of the religion of the state for the religion of the church.

As I commented before: "Perhaps we should read the First Amendment's Establishment Clause—'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion'—not as a mandated separation of religion and state but as a non-compete clause." We could rewrite it to say: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of any other religion…" To put it another way, other religions may exist, but they may not become rivals of the official religion, Americanism (nationalism).

We see this, as Cavanaugh relates, in a 1940 Supreme Court case, Minersville School District v. Gobitis, in which Jehovah's Witnesses were, in Cavanaugh's words, "denied the right to dissent from patriotic rituals" by having their children abstain from pledging allegiance to the flag in school. In his 8-1 majority opinion, Justice Felix Frankfurter seemed to pay homage to freedom of religion as a means to avoid "bitter religious struggles." But he did not extend this freedom to the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Why not? Because doing so would undermine the "promotion of national cohesion," Frankfurter wrote. "We are dealing with an interest inferior to none in the hierarchy of legal values. National unity is the basis of national security."

He added, "We live by symbols—the most crucial of which is the flag," and claimed, "what the school authorities are really asserting is the right to awaken in the child's mind considerations as to the significance of the flag contrary to those implanted by the parent." As Cavanaugh summed it up, "The Supreme Court upheld the right to inculcate patriotism over the right to the free exercise of religion."

In 1943 the Court overturned the case (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette), but, Cavanaugh writes, "Frankfurter had succeeded in introducing the idea that First Amendment decisions could be made against a backdrop of some unspecified history of 'bitter religious struggles,' the antidote to which is the enforcement of national unity…. The threat of religious violence would become a recurring trope in subsequent Supreme Court cases involving religion."

Today you cannot be compelled to pledge allegiance to the flag in school, but if you fail to stand for the national anthem or kneel during it at a football game, the president of the United States might demand your firing and many people will enthusiastically second the motion.

In later Court cases, justices who declared prayer in government schools unconstitutional nevertheless found no problem with some government-sponsored religious invocations. For example, as Cavanaugh reports, Justice Potter Stewart, dissenting in Engel v. Vitale (1962), which declared official prayers in government schools unconstitutional, pointed out that the government has long permitted religious invocations at official proceedings. The Supreme Court itself begins sessions with "God save this honorable Court." So, Stewart wondered, why not prayer in school?

Justices Arthur Goldberg and John Marshall Harlan II, who were in the majority, responded to Stewart in their concurring opinion by drawing, in Cavanaugh's words, "a sharp line between patriotic invocations of God and religious ones":

There is of course nothing in the decision reached here that is inconsistent with the fact that school children and others are officially encouraged to express love for our country by reciting historical documents such as the Declaration of Independence which contain references to the Deity or by singing officially espoused anthems which include the composer's professions of faith in a Supreme Being, or with the fact that there are many manifestations in our public life of belief in God. Such patriotic or ceremonial occasions bear no true resemblance to the unquestioned religious exercise that the State has sponsored in this instance.

"It is clear [from these words]," Cavanaugh comments, "that what separates religion from what is not religion is not the invocation of God. God may be invoked in public ceremonies without such ceremonies thereby becoming religious exercises, provided such ceremonies express 'love for our country.' Separating religion from nonreligion in this case depends not on the presence or absence of expressions of faith in God, but on the presence or absence of expressions of faith in the United States of America. God without America can be divisive; God with America unifies us all."

In other words, theistic religion in the service of and subordinate to the secular religion, i.e., nationalism, is okay. But theistic religion had better know its place or else.

If you need more evidence that nationalism and religion are cut from the same cloth, consider the presidential State of the Union address. This annual rite signifies something more than merely the chief executive's compliance with the Constitution's instruction to "give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."

It's also more than a rally for the particular politician holding the office. It is that, of course, with each White House occupant cherry-picking good news about, say, the economy—whether he deserves credit or not—and delivering a long list of objectives for the next year(s), most of which will be promptly forgotten.

No, it's more than these things. The State of the Union affair is a religious ritual intended to convey to the public the majesty of the state and the awesomeness of the presidency, if not the president, as well as the Congress. I like how Kevin Williamson put it in National Review during Obama's reign:

The annual State of the Union pageant is a hideous, dispiriting, ugly, monotonous, un-American, un-republican, anti-democratic, dreary, backward, monarchical, retch-inducing, depressing, shameful, crypto-imperial display of official self-aggrandizement and piteous toadying, a black Mass during which every unholy order of teacup totalitarian and cringing courtier gathers under the towering dome of a faux-Roman temple to listen to a speech with no content given by a man with no content, to rise and to be seated as is called for by the order of worship—it is a wonder they have not started genuflecting—with one wretched representative of their number squirreled away in some well-upholstered Washington hidey-hole in order to preserve the illusion that those gathered constitute a special class of humanity without whom we could not live.

This is all true, but it doesn't fully capture the religious aspect. The State of the Union affair goes along with the many other secular rituals—the pledge of allegiance; the rules for handling the flag; the national anthem at sporting events with its required decorum; the reverence for military might; the national holy days, er, holidays—not to mention the dogma and catechism (America is the exceptional, indispensable nation; America is a force for good in the world; America is the world's last best hope; America and its president are the leaders of the free world). All are calculated to awe the citizenry, lest the people remind themselves that those who rule them—for deep down they know they do not rule themselves—are a bunch of mediocrities, posers, and usurpers—misleaders, misrepresentatives, and public self-servants, as I call them. Even if they dislike the particular person who holds the presidency at the moment, their reverence for the church-state and its offices persists.

Members of the opposition party used to say about a given president, "I don't like the man but I respect the office." I think most people feel that way. So we shouldn't let the Democrats' cool reception of Donald Trump the other night distract us.

The keepers of the Official View have a vested interest in denying the commonality between religion and nationalism. In that view, religion is potentially divisive and prone to inspire violence (a distorted take on history is offered as evidence; see Cavanaugh), while in contrast, nationalism and the nation-state are unifying and peace-inducing. Thus, Cavanaugh writes,

In public, our identities as Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarians and Catholics and atheists no longer take precedence. We are all Americans, and devotional exercises meant to instill love of our country are unitive, not divisive. Such exercises, however, are not religion. Patriotism, in this world view, is defined over against public religion….

Religion belongs to the private realm of opinion; patriotism belongs to the public realm of fact. Dissenters from religious orthodoxy must be protected from religion; dissenters from patriotic orthodoxy may be tolerated but not allowed to interfere with the inculcation of the fervent love of country.

Thus is the game rigged in the service of power to the prejudice of liberty. I agree that religion has the potential to sow civil strife and violence, but that necessarily includes nationalism too. So if we value liberty and social cooperation we'll have to figure out how to deprive all religions of government power. One sure way would be to abolish the state.

This piece was originally published by The Libertarian Institute.

NEXT: America's Secret Death Penalty Drugs

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This is the Nation-State-worshipping song that 9 out of 10 pediatricians, and 21 out of 20 educrats, recommend for our young children:

    Scienfoology Song? GAWD = Government Almighty's Wrath Delivers

    Government loves me, This I know,
    For the Government tells me so,
    Little ones to GAWD belong,
    We are weak, but GAWD is strong!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    My Nannies tell me so!

    GAWD does love me, yes indeed,
    Keeps me safe, and gives me feed,
    Shelters me from bad drugs and weed,
    And gives me all that I might need!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    My Nannies tell me so!

    DEA, CIA, KGB,
    Our protectors, they will be,
    FBI, TSA, and FDA,
    With us, astride us, in every way!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    My Nannies tell me so!

    1. OT: In another thread I saw you link to the official website for the Church of SQRLS.
      I'm very confused, and amused, but mostly confused.

      It's like the stuff that the voices in my head are always saying.

      1. I "channel" the voices (and vices!) in my head, on a regular basis. Since there are NOT enough licensed, degreed, credentialed, and board-certified shrinks in the world... And since we are ALL "mentally interesting" to the shrinks, shrunks, and skunks... WHAT OTHER CHOICE DO WE HAVE other than to "certify" the voices in our heads, as being "therapists", and to proceed and take therapy from them?!?!?

        (I am not sure what they FDA has to say about that, but I will take my chances!)

        1. I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

          This is what I do...

  2. While we continue our trip brought fantasy land you will notice a flying shark-o-potamus through your left hand window.

    1. I thought I saw a SNARK-o-potamus, but I could be mistaken...

  3. The U.S. government is set to borrow nearly $1 trillion this year, an 84 percent jump from last year

    Source: MSN/Washington Post

    It was another crazy news week, so it's understandable if you missed a small but important announcement from the Treasury Department: The federal government is on track to borrow nearly $1 trillion this fiscal year ? Trump's first full year in charge of the budget.

    That's almost double what the government borrowed in fiscal year 2017.

    Here are the exact figures: The U.S. Treasury expects to borrow $955 billion this fiscal year, according to a documents released Wednesday. It's the highest amount of borrowing in six years, and a big jump from the $519 billion the federal government borrowed last year.

    Treasury mainly attributed the increase to the "fiscal outlook." The Congressional Budget Office was more blunt. In a report this week, the CBO said tax receipts are going to be lower because of the new tax law.

    What you say, Trumptards?

    1. It's true that the awful fiscal outlook hasn't really changed since your venerated hero Negro Nixon accumulated $9 trillion of debt in eight years.

      Shut the government down for real, and tell all your deadbeat bum friends in D.C. that this time they're not getting paid.

      1. "Hasn't changed"? You're a fucking moron, Mikey the Simpleton here on this most sacred of all Sundays.

        Obama reduced the deficit your Bushpigs left from $1.2 trillion down to about half a trillion. Debt still piled up but at a lower rate. Now in ONE YEAR ITS UP 84 PER CENT!

        "Hasn't changed"? Moron you are.

        1. I love it when you two get into a battle royale over who can lie the more.

          1. I'm not lying and you know it, you imbecile. The fact that you are not the partisan Mikey is doesn't shield you from your stupidity.

            Prove I am lying and I will leave this board forever. Here are my statements of fact:

            Obama reduced the deficit your Bushpigs left from $1.2 trillion down to about half a trillion. Debt still piled up but at a lower rate. Now in ONE YEAR ITS UP 84 PER CENT!

            "Hasn't changed"? Moron you are.


            1. Prove I am lying and I will leave this board forever. Here are my statements of fact:

              A. Your record on following through on bets does not bode well for your follow through on this.
              B. Your narrowing of the definition of lying to this one specific statement meets my definition of lying. Pay up. Be gone!

              1. I know we are getting out hopes up, but he was lying about leaving like he was lying about paying his bet, or being a rape apologist, or any of the other detestable garbage he has done.

                Does anyone honestly think he could quit this place?

            2. Now, my comment above was posted so I could get the link in. It wouldn't let me post before. Since I have the link up, you can click on it and check.

              What you'll notice is that everything in there is standardized to 1983 dollars to avoid the pernicious influence of inflation. That's the first thing to note. The second thing to note is that the table uses fiscal years, so when the presidency changed hands in 2009, the fiscal year had approximately 4 months of Bush and 8 months of Obama. I'm assuming that this year is the one from which you're taking your Bush statistic.

              Now, interesting fact: Bush's heaviest year of spending was FY2008, where the government ran a ~$262 billion dollar deficit. By contrast, FY2009, when Obama assumed office, had a deficit of over 900 billion dollars. Furthermore, Obama only had ONE year when his deficit was lower than Bush's highest full-year deficit, FY2014. In fact, in all other years, Obama's deficit was higher than Bush's; in all but four years of his presidency he ran a deficit of more than $350 million dollars. Even in his lowest deficit year (FY2014), where the deficit was only $155 billion, Bush undercut him on two separate occasions (FY2005, FY2007).

              Finally, Obama's final year of control left a deficit of $272 billion (FY2016). When Bush left office, his final year of control yielded a deficit of $262 billion (FY2008). NOTE THAT THIS IS ADJUSTED SO INFLATION ISN'T A FACTOR. No matter how you slice it, Obama increased the deficit.

              1. *crickets*

                Should we assume his silence is him actually honoring his promise?

              2. By Jeanne Sahadi, senior writer
                Last Updated: January 7, 2009: 5:00 PM ET

                NEW YORK ( -- The U.S. budget deficit in 2009 is projected to spike to a record $1.2 trillion, or 8.3% of gross domestic product, the Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

                The dramatic jump to the highest-ever deficit in dollar terms compares to a $455 billion deficit in fiscal year 2008 and $161 billion in 2007. The estimate does not account for the massive spending and tax cuts proposed in President-elect Barack Obama's economic rescue plan.

                (From the CBO CNN/Money link)

                Do you see the fucking date?

                I highlighted it for you.

                DO YOU SEE THE FUCKING DATE?

                Bush was still POTUS. The deficit was already at $1.2 trillion.

                DO YOU SEE THE FUCKING DATE????????

                NOW SHUT THE FUCK UP.

                1. Yep, another kept promise.

                2. Damn, Palin, you're referring to spending that occurred under Obama and still trying to blame it on bush. That's some, that's some high-grade derp there, that is.

                  1. "so when the presidency changed hands in 2009, the fiscal year had approximately 4 months of Bush and 8 months of Obama"

                    You spelled it out for him and he still screwed the pooch.

                  2. Forgive me, but I feel like I recall a manufactured logo stating "President elect" or something from Obama's team in front of a podium as he pontficated on the ills and required fixes for the economy.

                    I only mention this because the narrative appears to be that he was totally uninvolved until Jan 20, at which point he took the keys to the White House and got to work.

                    Do people really believe that? Uh, ok. I'll let you believe it, but it wasn't reality.

                    In addition, Bush is really considered to be among the worst ever on spending. This may be controversial, but I doubt it. I see little point im damning Obama with the faint praise of "very slightly better than Bush."

                3. "DO YOU SEE THE FUCKING DATE????????"

                  Forgive me, but I think FY means fiscal year.

                  Now, excuse me, I have something to laugh at.

                4. Isn't there a difference between "deficit" and "debt"?

                  1. "Deficit" is one year's budget shortfall (aka how much money was borrowed to cover that year's expenses). Debt is the total amount of money that needs to be paid back to creditors.

                    1. You can't prorate the deficit because Obama was POTUS for 2/3 of the fiscal year.

                      When Obama was SWORN IN the deficit was already going to be $1.2 trillion. That is what you TEAM RED! apologists don't understand.


                    2. And what you fucking have ignored for nearly 8 years is that the next three years were over $1TT deficits. Who was president for those 3 years shit for brains?

                5. I could ask who passed the budgets at the time and why deficits seemed to spike so heavily in 2007.

        2. Doubling what was previously doubled in the same time frame is not at a "lower rate"...

        3. By the way, I hope your Eagles get destroyed, and then afterwards a D.C. drunk driver kills you and finally puts you out of your manic-depressive misery.

          1. Waaaaay over the line there, DD.

            1. Yeah, pretty rough to be rooted against while playing the Patriots, but I ain't cryin' no tears for Philly.

            2. Mikey has been doing that for years. I know he is harmless.

        4. The deficit stayed over 1trillion for the first 4 years of Obama's presidency thanks to the Dems using the supposed one time stimulus spending from 2009 (stimulus spending that Obama supported) as a fucking baseline.

          I'll give him credit (as much as the president should get any credit for the budget since congress controls the fucking purse but whatever) for reducing it over the last 4 years of his presidency though.

          Oh, and the deficit for last year was 666BB, not 519BB.

    2. Trumptards say... We did our VERY best to make the peoples of Hispanististanistanistan PAY for that freakin' wall... But they were too irresponsible to pay for it.

      Therefor, we will make out grandchildren and great-grandchildren pay for that wall!

      Never mind that the wall (if built and policed) will help grow the debt, by fencing out those that pay in, but do not draw back out, of SS... See ...

      The illegal humans are paying for your and my Social Security paychecks when we retire, is the actual facts. They pay in, but have virtual zero chance of getting paid back. See?

      See "The Truth About Undocumented Immigrants and Taxes" (in quotes) in your Google search window will take you straight there, hit number one... AKA

      1. When has the Debt King Fat Nixon ever paid for anything? His whole life has been about Donning creditors, customers, suppliers and now voters.

        Fat Nixon he is.

        1. Same with Obama, who has never had an honest job in his life and now lives fat off the taxpayer teat.

          Same with Bush the Younger, who has lived off Daddy's connections and the taxpayer teat his whole life and now also sponges off the taxpayer teat.

          Same with all the Clintons, who live off foreigner teats who hoped to live off the American taxpayer teat.

          Back and back it goes. I suppose Reagan and Carter were the last Presidents who actually had earned honest livings one way or another. Before that, Eisenhower at least did honest work, even if it was the taxpayer teat. Truman flailed his way through various real jobs and left office broke and without a pension.

          1. No it isn't the "same". The Bushes and Obama did not con private citizens out of their money while they were also private citizens.

            It is standard business for Fat Nixon.

            1. " Fat Nixon"

              Interesting. Did Nixon lower taxes and cut red tape? No? Ok.

              Even now you can't stop slobbering on Caramel Nixon's dick.

              1. They call Hillary "Nixon in a pantsuit." What kind of Nixon is our future president, Kamala Harris? My vote is "double chocolate Nixon."

                1. ...Also, pity Fat Nixon never got to take an iconic Oval Office photo with Fat Elvis.

                  1. ...Also, on Thursday nights, behind closed doors in the East Wing, he prefers to be referred to fully and properly as Fatricia Nixon, thank you very much.

            2. Am I supposed to think Trump is "Fat?".

              Because he really isn't and I don't.

              1. I don't think he's obese, but ideally he should lose a bit of weight, especially at his age (though the fact that he's otherwise quite healthy, with no bad habits, and stays mentally active, is certainly giving him a good prognosis). He seems to have lost some since taking office, if I'm not mistaken. But he admitted this was one area of improvement during the campaign, on the Dr. Ooz show if I'm not mistaken.

                1. I guess my point is, if you're carrying a few extra pounds, I can't see that as fat. I mean, I could, but it really wouldn't be true.

                  Seems like a sad attempt to coin something that has no legs or real basis in reality. Those nicknames really only get moving when they're obviously true and something basically everyone notices, but also have a little wit.

                  He tries with "wombat hair" which is dumb because how many people know what a wombat looks like from memory, and it could be interpreted as "hair of a wombat" so it fails twice. He tried with "Cheeto" and various derivatives, but that didn't really work either because most humans stop caring about Cheetos by age 12. It was too childish for the intellectual set, and the obviousness worked against it. No really wit.

                  So far, the "find a counter for crooked Hillary and Litttle Marco" contest has been a huge disappointment.

                  I expected more from the self-proclaimed smart people.

      2. Trump hater refers to "Trumptards". The Libtard states: "Therefor, we will make out grandchildren and great-grandchildren pay for that wall!"

        The grandchildren will be paying far more for the worthless immigrants that Obama has brought in strictly because they are dependable democratic voters. FAR MORE.

        1. Go back to Bratfart, you brain-dead conservative. Conservatism is a fucking lie dependent on lies and religion to prop up.

        2. "?worthless immigrants that Obama has brought in strictly because they are dependable democratic voters."

          What we have going on here, is a bit of self-fulfilling prophecy... Non-socialists (libertarians) too often (as we have seen in these pages here), sad to say, evidently hate immigrants (or at least their non-friends and non-family who are illegal humans). Not-usually-as -socialist-as-the-Demoblicans (Republicrats & Trumpistas) evidently hate illegal humans with a passion. Who else are they (legal Hispanic citizens / voters who have friends and family who are illegal humans) going to vote, for, then, other than the more-socialist Demoblicans? Demoblicans are the "last man standing" here that apparently might, from time to time, think that illegal humans are worthy of living... So of course they are going to vote Demoblican! Are YOU going to vote those who endlessly vent their hate of you?

          1. I understand what you are saying, but what you are describing sounds close to coercion/bribery. As in, give these people what they want so they will become reliable voters for you.

            This is one reason I dislike the idea of making 12 million people, whatever the number is, who are illegal aliens become voting citizens. It is placing pressure on the democratic systems we have here to reap the windfall of voters by giving them what they want, citizenship. Frankly we have enough pressures to deal with already without introducing immigration into the mix.

            I really do wish we could make some grand bargain where people must immigrate here legally and if they try to exist here off the grid and illegally then they are deported if found *BUT* if you have a job, can support yourself, and are law abiding you can live here legally no questions asked. Neither side seems to be backing down though because this issue has festered for so long and soured the whole debate into one side who believes their rivals are racists and the other who thinks their rivals are pandering socialists.

            1. MeThinks that your compromise is quite reasonable... You are a voice of reason and restraint, in the screaming and hollering fest!

          2. Demoblicans are the "last man standing" here that apparently might, from time to time, think that illegal humans are worthy of living

            I think low-skill Mexicans are very worthy of living, I just prefer they do it in Mexico, not wherever I'm living.

            Are YOU going to vote those who endlessly vent their hate of you?

            Well, of course not. Which is why, as a white male, I have stopped voting for Democrats, and why I also prefer to live around people who don't call me "cracker" or beat me up or demand reparations from me (for what?). Because, make no mistake: Democrats and large numbers racial minorities are racists and filled with hate.

        3. "because they are dependable democratic voters."

          A large portion of them vote Democrat because Republican politicians continually threaten to deport their families.

          It is fascinating to see many of the same people who voted for Trump not because they agreed with him but only as a vote against Hillary, cannot fathom that many Hispanic immigrants vote for Democrats not because they agree ideologically with Democrats, but only as a vote against Republicans.

          1. Immigration is not as high a priority among Latino voters as is commonly believed--as evidenced by how Trump did somewhere between McCain and Romney with them. And this is despite an enormous amount of partisan sorting on the issue over that time period--in the 00s, Democrats were still often running to Republicans' right on the issue outside California.

          2. "A large portion of them vote Democrat because Republican politicians continually threaten to deport their families"

            So, it couldn't be that they are threatened with deportation because they were brought in as reliable Democrat voteres?

            It is telling that all they need to do is consider voting Republican to avoid deportation, but won't.

            What is also telling is how you continually insist things only operate in a single direction.

          3. A large portion of them vote Democrat because Republican politicians continually threaten to deport their families.

            Well, yes. And Republican politicians also continually threaten to take away their government benefits. Or to put it differently, Democrats undermine the rule of law and property rights by ignoring immigration laws and using government spending to buy votes. This is exactly the point. You simply agree with the Democratic political position and say "if Republicans adopted the same positions, the same people would vote for them". But, see, Republicans and independents exist precisely because people do not agree with those policies.

      3. They pay in, but have virtual zero chance of getting paid back. See?

        What makes you think that? Around the world, foreigners generally have a right to government retirement plans they have contributed to, and the same is likely going to happen even for illegals in the US. But more importantly, the Democratic party is trying to legalize their status, and at that point, they will be taking out much more than they paid in, because that's what low income earners do.

        The illegal humans are paying for your and my Social Security paychecks when we retire, is the actual facts.

        There is no "paying into" Social Security. Social Security transfers current payments to current retirees. And the demographics and financials of that simply aren't working out in the long run, no matter how many legal or illegal immigrants you let into the country. If you rely on Social Security to retire, you're a fool.

    3. What you say, Trumptards?

      Well, I didn't vote for Trump, but I don't have a problem with that. Why should I?

      Obviously, there are a lot of fools around the world willing to lend money to the US at low interest rates. I much prefer the US government taking their money instead of my money.

  4. Remember, Sheldon Richman is the same douche who said Catalonia doesn't have the right to secede from Spain because Spain is a sacred country and those bonds should never be dissolved.

    He's just another lying con artist who isn't very good at it.

    1. Oh, and your fucking Nunes "memo" is proven to be a pile of worthless shit, you idiot.

      1. Yesterday's leftist lie: "The memo will compromise intelligence!!!"

        Today's leftist lie: "The memo is not significant."

        Schiff, Pelosi, Feinstein wouldn't have been lying through their teeth to if the memo wasn't devastating.

        1. Yeah that too. It either compromises national security or it is an nothingburger. Both cannot he true.
          And I'll note that Team Blue has not disputed the actual contents.

          1. I'll vote for nothingburger. The Steele memo was based on opposition research which was initiated by Republicans against Trump and then lent continued sponsorship by Democrats. The fact the Steele stuff was based on opposition research against Donald Trump was put in a footnote which was there for the FISA court to see. Nunes didn't mention this but basically his whole point is that the font wasn't large enough or that judges don't read footnotes.

      2. That depends on what "proven", "worthless", and "shit" means.

        Also, is this really the narrative we are going with now? Seems desperate.

        1. The memo is being soundly ridiculed.

          In the body of the memo they let slip the origin of the FISA warrant.

          It was Papadapolous and NOT the dossier. Nunes stepped on his dick by not editing it for content.



            fucking GOP morons....

            1. Only The Rageaholic does outrage better, but he does it much much better. PluggedButt is a pale imitation.

              On the other hand, the sheer quantity of typed rage is fascinating, and he's so easy to bait.

          2. The memo is being soundly ridiculed.

            Looks like it's only by Democrats and the media outlets that favor them.

    2. He's just another lying con artist who isn't very good at it.

      He is a typical American intellectual acting the way American intellectuals do: they have assimilated a good deal of European anti-Americanism, and mix it up liberally with a dose of progressivism, socialism, and get-off-my-lawn senile American libertarianism. He doesn't have a choice than to take the positions he does, because he doesn't seem to have any skills beyond the limited and mostly useless skills of intellectuals, and he depends for his livelihood on other intellectuals giving him sinecures.

  5. Whatever happened to the Church of the Almighty Dollar? Eisenhower returns from Germany, picks Dicky Nixon as the replacement Herbert Hoover, and starts the "One Nation Under God" movement in imitation of the Ottoman Empire's "Under Allah" and Third Reich "Gott Mitt Uns." The only intellectuals to stand up against this reversion to German Positive Christianity and Prohibition Party Comstockism and offer a better idea have been Ayn Rand and Tara Smith, with the Nolan branch of the LP working to bring about peaceful political change using the leveraged clout of spoiler votes.

  6. "Church of America"

    Praised be freedom, hard work, and rule of law.

    1. You forgot to praise your 12 inch penis as well. God bestows them upon all red blooded American men.

      1. Some men have only a 3-inch penis...

        But some women LIKE them that wide!

        1. Don't people normally measure girth in circumference? I may have some bad news for you regarding the honesty of the women in your life...

          1. Honest women? Not with the PoundMeToo movement in full swing.

  7. Your GOP is filled with morons, bigots and shit-for-brains in general.

    But the memo's final paragraph admits that federal law enforcement's probe into the Trump campaign's ties to Russia was triggered by a different loud-mouthed campaign adviser rather than the controversial Steele dossier.


    1. Have you recently taken out the buttplug and cleaned it, or do you take it out, give it a good sniff, and put it back?

      1. Weigel is in a highly manic phase of his manic-depressive cycle right now because his "Iggles" somehow made the big game.

        Normally I can't stand Tom Brady and the Patriots, but I kind of hope they win tonight just so this miserable fucking loser will be even more miserable and a bigger loser than he already is.

      2. I always assumed that someone who calls themselves "Palin's Buttplug" is talking about themselves and their activities. You know, like traditional occupational surnames.

    2. By the way, did you really think I wouldn't notice you posted the same exact thing about the deficit on your Twitter feed a few hours ago, as you have done so many times in the past?

      You're the most transparently stupid, not to mention the most stupidly transparent, motherfucker on earth.

  8. Yes - abolish the state! But this must be done slowly and carefully. Government is discrediting itself and we need to dismantle it gradually until it's small enough to strangle in a bathtub. But just abolishing it outright will lead to violence and genocide. I don't understand why libertarians are crying about all the great progress we've been making lately. The FISA court has been shown to be a kangaroo court and we need to remind people to think twice before renewing it, not constantly cry about how it took a president to show this. That's a good thing! Or crying about how government shutdowns are a waste of money. True but they're a valuable lesson!

    Just vote Rand Paul 20/20. We'll be fine.

    Still Shillin' for Jill 2020 approves this message. GO IGGLES!

  9. The chants of "U.S.A! U.S.A!" that came from the audience at one point remind me of the chants of "Four legs good, two legs bad!" in Orwell's Animal Farm. I expect better from members of Congress.

    1. You sure they weren't abbreviating U Suck Ass?

    2. What the hell? Are we Americans or ... ? Bizarre comment.

    3. The chants of "U.S.A! U.S.A!" that came from the audience at one point remind me of the chants of "Four legs good, two legs bad!" in Orwell's Animal Farm.

      Well, sure, if you're an ignorant, privileged American, you might think that the distinction between the US and other nations is not rooted in objective, rational preferences, but arbitrary and based on prejudice, group membership, and xenophobia.

      But that's because you're an ignorant, privileged American. See, you demonstrate that not everything American is automatically good.

    4. I thought it was AWESOME, if for no other reason than I KNOW it made all the leftists assholes twitch. That's gotta be worth something!

    5. I thought it was AWESOME, if for no other reason than I KNOW it made all the leftists assholes twitch. That's gotta be worth something!

  10. Oh, Sheldon, you're trying to push all the buttons that progressive intellectuals like to push: "Trump/Americans are a bunch of dumb, uneducated, xenophobic nationalists."

    As an immigrant to the US, I can say this much: America really is one of the "best countries on Earth", which is clear to anybody who actually has lived in most other places for an extended period of time (jet-setting and hobnobbing with intellectuals around the globe doesn't count). And in order for it to stay that way, I prefer that the US have a strong military, and I want it to restrict immigration and deport illegal aliens.

    But that's not "Americanism" nor is it blind nationalism. You can argue that borders should be open and the military should be small based on libertarian principles or your own preferences or whatever. But if the US turns into a majority-minority country as a result, you'll see that what you mistook for "nationalism" and "xenophobia" is a simple rational preference for an island of a modicum of free market, classical liberal sanity in a world filled with shitholes. That is, if people like you succeed with your ignorant, self-aggrandizing arguments, anybody who can will demonstrate their lack of nationalism and just move on to the next best choice, maybe New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland, Australia, or Canada. None of them are as nice as the US used to be, but they are likely better than what people like you are turning the US into.

    1. (jet-setting and hobnobbing with intellectuals around the globe doesn't count)

      This. Nearly everybody who romanticizes every other country is naive and has likely only seen teh best touristy places in those countries. They also more likely wouldn't be able to immigrate there since they all have strict immigration and deportation policies.

      American exceptionalism and blind patriotism is indeed a problem. Ignoring America's problems and the wrongs done in the past is bad.

      However, even worse, and becoming far more common, is the white-washing and romanticizing of other countries and other cultures while only focusing on the bad things about America. It is the hand-picking some good things about other cultures while trashing any bad things about ours. It's making comparisons of America to Iceland, even though it's a frigid island smaller than Corpus Christi that's basically the closest thing to an ethnic state on Earth, while complaining that America isn't diverse enough and we can only be stronger when there are fewer white people.

      This "America is exceptionally bad" is more insidious and dangerous than the opposite American exceptionalism.

  11. No Freedom From the Church of America . . .

    There is a solution to this non-freedom. That solution is if the Church of America did not exist. To accomplish that means that the USofA would have to cease to exist. No USofA no Church of America and the people of the nation and of the world is saved form that . . .ism. Americanism. Nationalism.
    Problem solved!

  12. This kind of article is fucking retarded. I'm sooo sick and tired of people bashing nationalism. There are different types and different degrees of nationalism.

    A country with NONE will cease to exist very quickly. That's bad for the country.

    A country with too much of the wrong type might start wars of aggression. That's bad for the country (kinda, depending on how well the pillaging goes, if we're being honest).

    Which is why, as with many things in life, you need moderation. Being nationalistic doesn't mean you have to be for invading people, or even insulting foreigners (who don't deserve it... Fuck you Haiti! LOL), or anything else. Being proud of your people and your country is a good and wholesome thing. America has MUCH to be proud about objectively too.

    We've pretty much been the most free country in the history of man kind. We've protected the rights of our people better than anywhere else. Our system provides an opportunity to have a better life than is possible almost anywhere else. We killed Nazis and nuked those imperialist Japanese bastards! We landed men on the motha fucking moon! Al Gore invented the internet right here in the good ol' US of A!!! On and on.

    Why shouldn't somebody be proud of all that? Should the ancient Greeks have not been proud of their achievements? Or the Romans? Or the Chinese? Of course they should. They did great things.

    1. People who are knee jerk against having any sense of national pride have some kind of mental problem IMO. I think a lot of them just suffer from white guilt, or in the case of minorities they hate the majority culture with a passion, so they want to try to force everybody else to hate it as well. There is a HUGE gap between having national pride, and invading Poland!

      It's essentially like an individuals self esteem. You don't want to have NO self esteem. You don't want to be an ego maniac. You want to have enough self esteem that you can take deserved criticism, but also fight back when you're being unfairly criticized. Balance my friends!

      In any event, this whole idiotic globalist clap trap of everybody hating their own country, being a global citizen, etc will never work. People care about these things. Maybe faggotty pseudo-intellectuals don't, but most people do. And most people are proud of their heritage, even people from shithole countries! So if you can't beat the national pride out of Somalians, how are you ever going to beat it out of the populace of the greatest nation on earth???

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.