We, The American Tea Party Movement – the Republic’s defenders against injustice, tyranny, and Statism, have had enough. We are ending this phony dialogue on motivations and our identity. We have allowed a year of unwarranted and unprovable attacks on our character, our identity, and our motivations to go unanswered in the vain expectation that our opposition would be rational enough to see that schoolyard taunts are not the same thing as intellectual argument. We expected our opposition to act in their own interest and cease the nonsense when it became apparent to them that no one was buying what they were selling. We assumed that our silence would be understood. On that, we were mistaken. As a result of the NAACP’s ridiculous “vote” on our character and their demand that we apologize for each and every individual within our movement who might hold racist thoughts or opinions, we have been forced to respond.

Our response is this: We are school teachers, firefighters, shopkeepers, elected officials, homemakers, retirees, students, bankers; we are police, business leaders, husbands, wives, small town merchants. We are the voice of every American who believes that his life is his own, and that his neighbor is not responsible for or entitled to either his failures or his successes. We are the voice of every American who believes that he answers to the dictate of his own conscience, not to the demands of the barrel of a gun. It matters not whether that gun is held by the hands of a street thug, or a thug in Washington, our response is the same, a gun is not an argument.

We have been stoic in the face of the intellectual equivalent of the barrel of a gun as an argument. Namely, unprovable smears that racism is the motivation for our opposition to the “fundamental transformation” of America. The fact that this transformation is coming via the hands of a black president does not change the fact that it is a transformation into Statism, which we abhor. We do not care that the vessel for that transformation is a black president, we oppose the change, not the man.

As to the man, we do not withdraw our recognition that he is a radical, regardless of his race. We do not withdraw our assertion that his past and current associations with radicals matter, and should not be ignored, regardless of his race. We do not withdraw our acknowledgment of his accomplishments or his achievements, regardless of his race. We do not believe race and identity are equivalent, though many of our opponents do.

As to our identity, we define it, we do not allow the Alinsky method to define it for us. To that end, it is interesting that we have been painted as ignorant and incompetent on one day, and well coordinated astro-turf the next. It is interesting that we have been portrayed as violent extremists one one day, and passive social security recipients the next. It is interesting that those who comment on our motivations frequently surmise that we must be unemployed layabouts while we are actively opposing policy that would make such a life untenable. It is utterly fascinating that our opponents are unable to use reason and logic. Finally, it is beyond comprehension that they have not yet figured out who we are.

We are the voice of reason in an irrational world, and we will not be silenced or muted into submission by accepting an unearned guilt. We are the choir which is the combined voices of America.

For those who have demanded that we repudiate or apologize for the small fraction of racists who may believe that they are tea party members or that they hold our values,; for those of you who demand that we do the logically impossible and, by default, prove our lack of racism – we say: are you serious? We can not, of course, prove a negative, except by implication. So we call out those who believe without evidence that we are motivated to oppose the radical that has inherited the sixty plus year old Progressive agenda at the peak of that agenda’s success, because that President happens to be black. We will be happy to engage on the merits of that argument, and on the merits of our ideas for the future of our Republic. We will not, however, continue the absurd distraction that is identity politics. We are too busy and have too much to do to engage in such nonsensical distractions.

We are too busy transforming America back to the vision our founders had for her to distract ourselves by engaging with those who wish to alter our identity in the minds of our fellow citizens, when those citizens have not yet met us face to face.

We are not dealing with primarily an economic crisis.  The crisis goes well beyond questions of whether markets will fail or
whether we will have our jobs next week. What we are
experiencing is is a crisis of faith.  We have, as those who lived
through the Depression experienced,  lost faith in our leaders,
our economic system, and most crucially, we have lost faith in
ourselves.

Our leaders are trying to convince us to have faith in the
“system” (a system they have torn asunder and now claim that
they will fix without showing the moral courage to define or name the “system” they intend to fix.  Our ministers and priests assure us that we must
have faith in God and the Church, which has failed entirely on every mission it has undertaken while simultaneously telling us
our problems are the result of countless misdeeds- from dropping support
the ten commandments  to the battles over abortion and gay marriage .   Our government Institutions and leaders tell us to
have faith that they can prevent an Ancient Rome style collapse
with minute to minute changes in the interest rates,  tax cuts,
and revisions of the regulatory code.  Friends this is a crisis of
faith- and I for one say good riddance to faith.

Faith,  belief in something in the absence of evidence , is not the
answer.  We need solutions which are based-  not on faith, but a
rigid commitment to the facts, to truth, and to our nature.  This
is the precise description of the process that philosophers have
tried to damn since they reneged on their responsibility to
provide answers-reason.

Reason will tell you that what we have done so far is not
working-therefore change the methods we are employing.
Reason will tell you that our government has failed in its
obligation to protect us from this mess-therefore change the
nature of our government.  Reason will tell you that church
leaders  don’t have a rational solution-therefore ditch those
archaic and failed institutions which have consistently provided
no answers, and have created the crux of the problem.

In her well articulated article “Faith and Force: the Destroyers of
the Modern World”  (printed in Philosophy: Who Needs It
(available at amazon.com)), Ayn Rand clearly demonstrates the antipathy between faith and reason; between persuasion and force, and the
need to return to reason as an absolute.  For those who advocate otherwise I  tell you: reality, logic, and human nature will hold you accountable.

Much thanks (and apologies) are due to an artist friend of mine in Albany, NY, who suggested a solution to the Prop 8 dilemma in
California.;  long before Prop 8.  I had been arguing for  Federal and
State recognition of gay marriage for many years;  I now confess
that I was wrong.  Prop 8 supporters and their gay detractors take
note:  you are both wrong, too.

The problem posed by Prop 8 is that it’s not about gay marriage;
it’s about the citizens’ right to define the law, and the
government’s role in one’s private life.  Our Republic’s uniqueness
is that the framers of the Constitution understood that citizens had
the ethical right (and urgent need) to be able to amend, re-write, or
toss out their governing documents and laws.  They knew that this was the
fundamental requirement of a healthy, moral society.  The
founders also understood that government’s role was limited to
protecting citizens from force.

California’s Supreme Court made a partially correct decision in
upholding Prop 8; by deciding in favor of the voter’s of California,
they determined that it is the right of the people to amend the
state’s Constitution-however, they failed to address the more
crucial issue of whether government should be involved in the
marriage issue at all.

The Prop 8 debacle illustrates the inherent flaw in the thinking of
the statists on both sides of the debate.  Liberal gays are
convinced that marriage should be Federally recognized and
available to gays and lesbians.  Conservative Christians, Jews, and others are
convinced that what is primarily a religious contract should be
withheld from same sex partners.   Gays will ultimately win this
aspect of the culture war (and shouldn’t) because the judiciary and
statists on both sides believe that marriage is both a civil AND
religious institution which must be protected , encouraged, and
sanctioned by civil authorities.  Religious Conservatives will lose
(and should) because they have forgotten their own political
commitment to limited government and are attempting to dictate
their religious ethics via the barrel of a metaphorical gun (through
legislation).

The solution to this dilemma lies in the Objectivist principle of the
separation of State and economics (as well as the separation of
Church and State).  If two consenting adults desire to enter into a
contract which gives them financial and legal obligations, rights,
and responsibilities it is the role of government to protect that
contract-and no more. If a Religious body desires to recognize the
union of a man and a woman and wishes to bar all other unions, it
is its right which should not be interfered with (nor endorsed,
encouraged, or dissuaded by) government.

Never the twain shall meet should be the ruling ethic in regards to
marriage and State.

The solution to the issue lies in a two tiered system-a civil
contract which all couples must acquire if the couple wants  their
economic, legal, and joint interests  recognized and protected by
the state or federal government; and a separate marital union
entered into via religious institutions which the government must
not interfere with, sanction, or concern itself with.

This solution would only work in a truly rational society which has
purged all statist elements from its governing laws.  Until such a
society exists, the left will continue its push towards fascism; with
gay marriage and the purge of all religious freedoms as a result.
Unless the Republicans and Conservatives understand their own
treason against the First amendment they will lose the nation.
Unless  gays come to understand that the Left will continue to
betray their interests in the name of the “common good” , they will
once again find themselves wearing pink triangles and heading to
camps when the Religious and secular Progressives determine  that gay support is no
longer necessary.

It is time that supporters of limited government in the  gay community and Religious Conservatives
understand that we have a common enemy.  We must come to see that we are fellow soldiers in a common war.

The  crisis in the middle east is a bigger problem than whether Palestinians and
Israelis will ever live side by side in peace.  It
is a symptom of a larger issue, and an
indication of the solution.  You will never hear
any “expert” on  middle east relations saying
publicly what is surely being said in private:
this milennia old dispute is irrationalism given
the veneer of respectability.  The ever growing
violence between factions will not be stopped
until all sides are told once and for all: open
your minds, and shut your mouths.

Make no mistake about it, regardless of what
we hear from Palestinian “moderates”, the
leaders of the Palestinian people will never
allow a two state solution.  The Palestinian
Authority, Hamas, Hezbollah, and every
dominant Islamist group in the region will
accept nothing less than the eradication of
Israel and her people and the implementation
of an Islamic empire in the region, and
eventually the rest of the world.  Make no
mistake about it, the Israeli government will
never allow the “right of return” for
Palestinians, or an Islamic Empire to surround
their country.

These are irreconcilable differences in an area
which is dominated by ir rationalism.  Israelis
will not allow Israel to become a secular
state, and Islamists will never accept secularism,
on any terms.

This dilemma is proof positive that no solution
can be found in the pursuit of the irrational.
Please observe that this situation is only
happening because both parties have
convinced themselves that God is on their
side.  The Middle East crisis is not a war of
equals, it is not a competition for land or oil, and it is not
a battle of ideologies; it is a holy war.  The
dark ages have never left us.  They have been
there, perpetually in our midst for millennia.  The period known as the
dark ages were dominated by two overall
principles, the supremacy of faith over reason
and the rule of brute force.

To my Christian friends on the right who have
convinced themselves that this is proof of the
“end times” malarkey that they have been
peddling off as wisdom, I wish to tell you: yes,
these are the end times, but not in the manner
you wish to present it.  This holy war will
either end with mysticism buried for all time
(as it should be), or the full reverse of freedom, progress, and prosperity forall of us-for many more centuries. There
is no middle ground between reason and
religion.  Reason and religious ideology are
ethical and practical antagonists, there can be
no compromise.  To those clamoring on about
“prophecy”, and predestination:  be warned,
your insistence on the justness of your cause
could very well be a self fulfilling prophecy.

At the birthplace of the three dominant
religions of the past several thousand years
we are witnessing before our eyes, in real
time, the collapse of mysticism.  This is NOT
an accident, and it is not “divine will”; it is
tribalism, barbarism, and meaningless
slaughter waged by witchdoctors in the name of ghosts in the sky  This is
the nature of mysticism, unchanged in its
essence, since primitive man attempted to
explain his origins by muttering to rocks and fire.  Force has always been a corollary of
religion, regardless of the prattling on by
some that theirs is a religion of peace.  Unless
men deal with other with their minds, no other
means are left open to them but guns, rocks,
missiles,and bombs.

This is a dilemma which will remain unsolved
until rational adults say “enough is enough”
and call the parties out.  No solution is
possible until men of reason say to those who
would demand that others deny the evidence
of their senses and simply take them at their
word, your word be damned.  The evidence is lacking.`

Now is the time for us to consider radical solutions.  Certainly the current Administration’s “solutions” are
radical-dramatically reshaping, distorting, and damaging our
economic and political system.  Radicalism was the
foundation of the American Revolution, and its time that
Americans take the founder’s example to heart.

According to Article I, section three of our Republic’s founding document, the Senate reserves the
power to try all impeachments;  there may be a solution that
Congress has not foreseen: the removal of Congress en masse
by “the people”.

The ninth and tenth amendments of the U.S. Constitution
(articles 11 & 12) grant all powers not delegated to the federal
government to the people. Removal of members of Congress is a power NOT granted to the body as a whole(except as a penalty after conviction for “high Crimes and Misdemeanors”  -nor to the other branches of government  Ladies and gentleman, WE are the
people.  hadenough.us is proposing a radical solution for the crimes and treasonous acts of the House AND Senate-a
grassroots movement to invoke the Constitutional powers
granted to the People and, rather than impeach specific members of
Congress via the Senate, to institute a complete removal of the current Congress and implement a replacement by direct popular vote.

This may be naive and ultimately fail in terms of actual
removal from office, but it may achieve the political effect of
mobilizing  public sentiment against apathy, frustration, and fatalism and put Congress, the Administration,
and the Judiciary on notice that they work for
us, not the other way around.
Radical? perhaps.