Free Minds & Free Markets

No Freedom From the Church of America

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

Jim Loscalzo/ZUMA Press/NewscomJim 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.

Photo Credit: Jim Loscalzo/ZUMA Press/Newscom

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.

  • SQRLSY One||

    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!

  • silver.||

    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.

  • SQRLSY One||

    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!)

  • JoeBlow123||

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

  • SQRLSY One||

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

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    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?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    "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.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

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

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    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.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    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!

  • Sammi||

    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?

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||


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

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    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.


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



  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Yep, another kept promise.

  • Sammi||

    "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.

  • completely impervious||

    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."

  • Sammi||


    Forgive me, but I think FY means fiscal year.

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

  • Paloma||

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

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    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.

  • DesigNate||

    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?

  • damikesc||

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

  • Rebel Scum||

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

  • chemjeff||

    Waaaaay over the line there, DD.

  • DiegoF||

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

  • Palin's Buttplug||

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

  • DesigNate||

    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.

  • SQRLSY One||

    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

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    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.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    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.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    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.

  • Rebel Scum||

    " 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.

  • DiegoF||

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

  • DiegoF||

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

  • DiegoF||

    ...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.

  • Sammi||

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

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

  • DiegoF||

    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.

  • Sammi||

    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.

  • MarioLanza||

    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.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

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

  • SQRLSY One||

    "…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?

  • JoeBlow123||

    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.

  • SQRLSY One||

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

  • Mark22||

    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.

  • chemjeff||

    "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.

  • DiegoF||

    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.

  • Sammi||

    "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.

  • Mark22||

    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.

  • Mark22||

    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.

  • Mark22||

    You should know; you do it all the time.

    However, I didn't complain, I just pointed out that SQRLSY One is delusional: contrary to what he believes, letting in more illegal aliens and low skill workers will accelerate the demise of Social Security because Social Security is merely inter-generational transfers.

  • Mark22||

    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.

  • Mark22||

    So you're fine with China having enough of our debt to totally destroy our currency and economy.

    It won't "destroy our economy". If the US takes on too much debt, it simply means that the US can't borrow any more money and the US dollar inflates, wiping out much of US domestic and foreign debt and government obligations. I'm perfectly fine with that: it's how currencies and debt are supposed to operate. Where do you see the problem?

  • Mark22||

    And the US dollar inflates, wiping out much of US domestic and foreign debt and government obligations.

    How in HELL does that wipe out debt? (OMFG)


    1. A person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behaviour. Example: Michael Hihn

    There, FTFY.

  • Mark22||



  • Palin's Buttplug||

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

  • MarioLanza||

    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.

  • Rebel Scum||

    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.

  • Lester224||

    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.

  • Rebel Scum||

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

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

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    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.

  • Palin's Buttplug||


    fucking GOP morons....

  • Rebel Scum||

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    404 Not found

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    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.

  • vek||

    Wood chippers are so last year... It's all about helicopter rides nowadays baby!

  • Juice||

    The memo is being soundly ridiculed.

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

  • Mark22||

    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.

  • Hank Phillips||

    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.

  • Rebel Scum||

    "Church of America"

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

  • Eric||

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

  • SQRLSY One||

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

    But some women LIKE them that wide!

  • DiegoF||

    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...

  • Cy||

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

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    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.


  • Rockabilly||

    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?

  • Mark22||

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

  • DajjaI||

    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!

  • Dan S.||

    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.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    You sure they weren't abbreviating U Suck Ass?

  • Variant||

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

  • Mark22||

    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.

  • vek||

    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!

  • vek||

    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!

  • Mark22||

    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.

  • colorblindkid||

    (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.

  • Mark22||

    By calling Sheldon a Progessive

    I didn't call him a progressive, I accused him of pushing the same buttons as progressives.

    The Authoritarian Right ALWAYS attacks as progressive

    Progressives are authoritarians.

    Mass movements do not need a god, but they do need a devil. Hatred unifies the True Believers

    Demonizing people is what you do, Hihn.

  • Mark22||

    At least you admit your racism. Somehow, individual liberty applies only to white folk.

    How does "I don't want to live in a majority minority country" translate into "individual liberty applies only to white folk"? How does "if the demographics of this country change in ways that I don't like, I will exercise my right to freedom of movement" translate into "individual liberty applies only to white folk"?

    Where do you even get the idea that "majority minority" is in reference to any specific race? I would be a minority in places like Hong Kong or Singapore, but I would find that still preferable to being in a "majority minority" America.

    This is a libertarian web site.

    Well, you certainly are no libertarian.

  • vek||

    Yup. These idiots don't realize what a shit storm this country will be when there is NO controlling majority ethno-cultural group. I have come to firmly believe that every nation state needs to have a super majority ethnic group that is more or less the same culture in charge. If you don't then the infighting will be brutal, as it always has been historically. We can see the beginning of it in the USA, and tack on 20 or 30 years and it's going to be a nightmare... That's if we don't have a civil war before then.

  • vek||

    And yes high I did use the word faggoty! For years I got "sensitive" about calling people/things gay/fags, which was totally normal when I was a kid. But the last few years as the PC crowed got out of control I said FUCK IT, I'm bringin' it back.

    I have no problem with "The Gays." I've had gay friends since middle school. I was the second person in the world my friend Nathan came out to. I was friends with the only openly gay kid in my small town high school. But I think it does do well as an insult for effeminate, ultra PC, douche bags. Which is why I used it as such!

    As for niggers and spicks, what's there to say? I'm part spick myself Hihn. I dubbed my best friend in middle school Beaner as a nick name! His mother even started calling him that sometimes. LOL I also got dubbed Beaner Schnitzel, since I'm mostly German and part Mexican. There's nothing wrong with a little offensive language from time to time. Niggers I don't really use too much, but there is a difference between a nigger and a black guy... Just as a white guy and white trash.

  • vek||

    No, I don't have a problem with individual liberty or equal rights. I have simply come to the conclusion as I get older that multi cultural societies have problems that more or less homogenous ones do not. This is something I finally accepted as I have read more history, studied human psychology etc.

    In Canada's case, I presume you mean Anglo and French? If so, it proves my point. They are constantly arguing with each other. They have tried to secede several times. They fight about policy all the time. It's not as bad as saaay the Shiites and the Sunnis, but it's not harmony either. If you're talking about the high skilled Asians they have a ton of now, that's only recently been a thing, and it's also creating tensions.

    Compare that to the USA where we encouraged assimilation instead of separateness. White Americans basically all melded into a single mono culture, European American. I think when cultures are compatible enough to have a shot at becoming one this can work fine. When they can't it is a problem. See African American culture for an example.

  • vek||

    You seem to imply there is only Option A. 100% Full bore open borders with whatever combo of people, none of which constitute a real majority OR Option B. Naziesque white nationalism with race based laws, segregation, etc.

    There are other options. Like America in 1980. Or Japan today. They control their immigration to Japan Japanese, but they don't tell white people or black people they don't have the same legal protections when living in Japan. A lot of white nationalists want something akin to how Japan works, not Nazi Germany.

  • vek||

    It's funny you say that, because I think being a 100% true believer that culture doesn't matter is something that only a 12 year old could believe. I used to. Then I learned things and grew up.

    The utopian multicultural society is a nice, warm, fuzzy idea. I get why people want to like it. I did. The problem is that it has never worked out like that in the real world. Human psychology just doesn't work that way. Which is the same reason communism fails, when in fact on paper it should be able to work. But it's against human nature, so it fails miserably every time. So will multiculturalism. It's tearing apart at the seems as I type this.

    One need look no further than the rabid, aggressive, militant, anti white vitriol coming from Hispanics and blacks in the USA to see exactly how THEY are the ones acting in a racialist manner, FAR more than white people. We're going to see more and more of this since whites are no longer the majority.

    White kids growing up now are less than 50% of the population, hence growing up minorities themselves. Given that the main goal of Hispanics and blacks is to do what is in THEIR groups self interest, and largely against the interests of whites, how long before kids that grew up being the minority are going to get sick of it and pissed themselves? Not long I think.

  • vek||

    You're the one making it out like there are only 2 extreme options, instead of the million variations of reasonable options in between. I don't think we should bar all white people from moving to the country, but every time anybody mentions "Hey don't you think it's maybe not a great idea to let people move here with the equivalent of an elementary school education?" they get called a Nazi for a perfectly reasonable viewpoint.

    Compromise is called compromise for a reason. Nobody gets their entire wish list. We should compromise on immigration, but the open borders crowd will hear none of it. Despite much evidence of problems with low skilled immigration, and immigration from places with radically different cultures, they cling to their incorrect premise that people are ALL interchangeable widgets. If they would budge 2 inches it could be sorted out reasonably quite easily.

  • vek||

    For better or worse, enter white identity politics. I grew up in a minority majority city, and I had racism spewed at me constantly from blacks and Mexicans that were more Mexican than I am... Until I told them I was part Mexican, then I was magically cool with most of them. Blacks of course never stopped because I wasn't black, and they hated Mexicans too.

    The only way this ever has a shot in hell is if we convince non whites to stop acting racially, because they are in fact the biggest racialists in the world today, especially in the USA. But it will never happen. We'll just have endless infighting.

    Which Japan has ZERO of, because they decided to avoid this MASSIVE problem by simply not importing foreigners who wouldn't/couldn't assimilate. To not acknowledge obvious facts like this is very stupid. Every single bit of the racial tension we have in the USA would not exist if we didn't import foreigners, who don't even like American culture, who have no intent on assimilating, and specifically intend to look out for their in groups interests first and foremost.

    You can argue the trade off is worth the trouble... But I have yet to see anyone explain how mass immigration, beyond a small number of highly skilled people, serves any particular good... Well ethnic food! But other than those two, nothing. Yet it's easy to point out all the downsides, which are huge. You don't have to LIKE the way the world works, I DON'T, but you must see it for what it is.

  • Mark22||

    It's precisely what White Nationalist say ... even the same context.

    No, it's not. White nationalists want to adopt government policies that turn the US white. I'm simply saying that if the US ends up turning into the kind of majority-minority society that progressives envision, I'm leaving. I'm not restricting anybody's liberty by exercising my right to freedom of movement.

    Your example is race-based!

    No, it's not. I don't care what race people have (race isn't a well-defined concept), what I care about is whether people believe themselves to be minorities. I don't want to live in a country in which the majority of people believe themselves to be a member of some oppressed minority because such countries are inherently unstable.

  • Mark22||


    Your vision of America is one in which Americans divide themselves to arbitrary, ill-defined minority groups and then wallow in their victimhood. You delight in categorizing Americans into white, black, Jewish, Muslims, Hispanic, and whatever other categories racists traditionally like. It's what you advocate and celebrate when you advocate and celebrate a "majority minority" America. That makes you a boring, run-of-the-mill 20th century racist, Hihn.

    What I want is something very simple: a race-blind, meritocratic society with low taxes, secure borders, and limited government.

  • vek||

    Yup. Unless non whites give up on playing the race card, this country will be an endless shit show of infighting. But it ain't gonna happen. So we're basically doomed. I'm probably going to try to ride it out in a smaller state that isn't as effected by the madness, but I'd bail if I ever have to. As you mention above, some Asian countries would be quite tolerable if need be, although I'd prefer that America returned to sanity instead :/

  • Curly4||

    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!

  • vek||

    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.

  • vek||

    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???

  • vek||

    But there ARE Hihn. People who say that ANY level of nationalism is a great evil are crazy. As I said it's like an individuals self esteem. It can be too low, or too high, but it's not bad if it's in the right range. See my post above about faggots. I have no problem with fags. I have several gay friends, even some trannies! But as it has always been used, it is a nice term for insulting feminine, sensitive, pussy men. So that's how I use it.

  • vek||

    That has nothing to do with my self esteem! It has to do with not being a bunch of overly sensitive pussies. Are you one of those people who is against "fat shaming" too? Like it's not acceptable to call anyone a fat bastard anymore because it might hurt their feewlings? Fuck that. Our whole society has become waaay too feminine and overly sensitive. We've allowed women to dictate what is or is not acceptable in too many areas of life. Since they tend to be overly emotional, empathetic, passive, and generally weak to standing up against other people, we've allowed them to dictate to everybody what can or can't be said. If it would offend a weak, passive, emotional woman, then it is forbidden!

    This is why you can't insult anybody anymore. This is why you can't keep score at fucking baseball games! This is why little boys rough housing is the WORST THING IN THE WORLD. And a million other things.

    Fuck that. I've been insulted in my life plenty of times by plenty of people. So have most people. I also got in plenty of scraps when I was a kid, also like most little boys of my generation. I won baseball games, and I lost baseball games. If you never learn how to take it, AND dish it out, then you become weak and cowardly. The swing back on this stuff is happening big time, because feminine thinking has been allowed to go too far.

  • vek||

    Men and women need each other to balance things out. Nazi Germany was a very masculine and brutal society (no consideration for the weak, if we don't like your point of view we'll just kill you, etc), but our society is too coddling, feminine, and weak. Saudi Arabia is another example of a too hardcore masculine influence. Modern day Sweden is an example of an even weaker and more coddling society. BALANCE is what is needed, not either sex getting their way 100% of the time.

    America circa any era up until about the 70s was at various points in the sweet spot IMO. During the 1900s Women could vote, they could speak their mind, but we didn't let the weakest (Oh but what about the CHILDREN!!! How can you not be in favor of this huge welfare program, the HORROR!!!) viewpoint be the deciding voice every single time either. Balance.

  • vek||

    I'm not an old bastard like you, so not heart attack worries for me!

    Where did I say anything about enslavement of anybody? I'm 110% against slavery. I'm just saying we've allowed one sex, the overly emotional one, to take the helm... And it's made our society overly sensitive and weak. You could say the same thing in reverse about America in 1800 when it was totally male dominated. We were overly harsh with people because men called all the shots.

    Somewhere between then and now we approached a reasonable level of influence by both sexes. We got kinder towards the vulnerable in society, we stopped allowing prisoners to be beat to death on chain gains, etc but men still put their foot down on coddling deadbeats on welfare, allowing children to hurt their feelings sometimes to learn valuable life lessons, etc... But then we swung too far to the feminine side, not realizing that we just passed the perfect balance of male/female preferences.

    I'm not freaking out over any of this, it's old news to me. It is just a statement of fact. Thankfully we're swinging back the other way, and hopefully this time we don't over swing too far to the masculine side.

  • vek||

    Okay, so I was right. You ARE just a total pussy. Look man, people make fun of other people. Calling somebody a fat bastard isn't nice, which is why I don't run around telling fat people they're fat all the time. BUT where it goes too far is FREAKING THE FUCK OUT over even the slightest micro aggressions. You seem to be that level of sensitive. Which makes you a feminine pussy.

    Men don't get all but hurt about making off color jokes. That's supposed to be reserved for women Hihn!

    "...destroy THE most tolerant and accepting nation in the history of humankind?"

    The question is when does becoming TOO tolerant become a bigger problem than tolerating minor verbal aggressions? The fact that people can be fired for making fat jokes, or saying completely factual things like that women and men are biologically different IS INSANE. We have no obligation to tolerate people who hold crazy/incorrect views. This is all feminine thinking of "always be nice," which when taken to an extreme becomes detrimental. You, mam, were brainwashed to think like a woman.


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online