Tea Party Hypocrites – San Diego Style

by on February 24, 2010 · 45 comments

in Media, Popular, San Diego, War and Peace

Mad HatterOn Saturday, February 27, a number of our fellow citizens will take publicly funded roads to a public park to participate in a Tea Party rally at which our publicly funded police force will maintain law and order if necessary. Once our fellow citizens arrive, they will rail against the unfair redistribution of wealth and the size of government.

Hypocrisy In Action

Of course it is that very redistribution of wealth which provides them with those roads, that park, those police. And it is that very redistribution of wealth that provides their “entitlements” of Medicare, Veteran Benefits, and Social Security; that provides their children with public education, parks and recreation centers and libraries. The Tea Party comes with an enormous side of hypocrisy.

It is statistically probable that 95% of those in attendance received a tax cut under the Obama administration.  It is also statistically probable that only 2% of the Tea Party people will know or acknowledge that their taxes decreased.  Tea Partiers are not about to let the facts get in the way of a snarling sound bite aimed at the Obama administration.

Will the Real Tea Party Please Stand Up?

On a national level, the Tea Party movement is clearly suffering from multiple personality disorder. There has been a rush by entities to brand themselves as the “real” Tea Party.

The corporate sponsored FreedomWorks and the GOP itself have been shamelessly pimping off of the anger and frustrations of amorphous grass roots groups which appear more inclined to align themselves with the Tea Party Patriots. And then there is Libertarian/ Republican Senator Ron Paul, who launched the first Tea Party rally in 2007. At the recent CPAC (Conservative Party Action Convention) Ron Paul received the most straw votes as conservative presidential candidate while simultaneously being booed when the results were tallied.

The tenants of the Tea Party Patriots Official Grassroots American Movement of “freedom, fiscal responsibility, free markets, limited government” are not enough to unify the various factions. The competition for political power, economic gain and the desire to insert ultra-conservative social agendas into the movement have raised leadership issues, resulted in dueling conventions and a demand for conservative values” purity” tests.

East County Tea Party: Guys, Guns and Glory

On a local level, the Tea Party movement isn’t any more cohesive. An East County Tea Party was held on Saturday February 20 at El Cajon’s Renette Park. The San Diego Union Tribune estimated the crowds at 1,000 and staff writer Michele Clock quoted El Cajon Councilman Bill Wells, candidate in the Republican 77th Assembly District as saying that the gathering drew people who “want to take back their government, take control of their lives and keep what they earn.”

The East County Magazine presented a substantially different picture.  In their article Bill Wells estimated the crowd at 500, Channel 8 reported dozens in attendance and Channel 9 estimated several hundred. Ah yes, the Union Tribune would estimate 1,000 attendees… East County Magazine also noted speakers who addressed other elements in the movement “ranging from abortion to battling terrorism.”

The recently formed East County Tea Party’s website has a largely incomprehensible homepage which belies their slogan that “Spreading intellectual wisdom has never been easier.” Their Tea Party Declaration reflects their intent to preserve and defend the constitution “from the forces of oppression, socialism and wasteful government spending.” The details aren’t surprising. While they “demand that our elected officials immediately stop the practice of redistributing the hard-earned wealth earned by its citizens,” they don’t see the inherent hypocrisy of protesting in a public park. The paranoia and thinly veiled hint of violence regarding the right to bear arms, however, is worth noting.

“Be advised, we view our right to bear arms as a vital mechanism to stop any attempt of our democratic republic’s evolution into a despotic autocracy. Beware, it is evident as to what is being done and we will use any and all measures available to crush these efforts.”

That kind of up-in-your-face language certainly ratchets things up a notch. The declaration ends with a strong reprimand to President Obama about his foreign policy-

“We want to express how strongly we feel that we want our President to STOP apologizing for our country. On several occasions Mr. Obama seems to have this compulsion to constantly apologize for our past mistakes…”

The Temple of Mut: Women, Flaming Capitalism and Tut, Too

The East County Tea Party does not present a complete picture of the local movement. San Diego’s urban Tea Party members, as reflected at the Temple of Mut have yet a different approach to the movement’s tenants. They have been around longer, have young women leaders (or unleaders) and are very much trying to break through the leaden strategies of their El Cajon brethren and most of their national counterparts.

It is worth comparing their assessment of the El Cajon Tea Party rally to the coverage in the U-T and the eastcountymagazine. Described as an “Epic Fail: Local GOP Leader ‘blends’ with TEA Party activists,” the author continues:

Dear Readers: I wanted to share this story to offer a great example of local Tea Party/Citizen Action groups experiencing specific problems with the Republican Machine, while offering some (hopefully) helpful suggestions.

There was a Tea Party in East County recently, which I did not choose to attend for the following reasons:

1) It is known to me that the East County Tea Party has received seed money for an event from the San Diego County Republican Party and the group is the most heavily promoted Tea Party entity by the local GOP in the region. While, as a registered Democrat, I have no problem with this fact — what troubles me most is that the East County Tea Party tries to hide its GOP ties. I would be more impressed with the group if they were open about the Republican connections and let the citizens decide whether to attend or not.

…However, I talked with my close compatriot, Charles Caesar, about this event. He indicated that approximately 300 citizens were there (the San Diego Union Tribune reports 1,000, highlighting the continued challenges with crowd estimates). He said the event “was essentially candidates on parade”, and hopes to provide this website a few details.

The Temple of Mut site makes no mention of the conservative social agenda elements presented at the rally or being floated nationally. I remain curious about their position on the government intrusion into the reproductive rights of women and their position on gay marriage, for starters. And I’d love to speak personally with the registered Democrat (?) contributor on this site. (Sarah- you can contact me at OBRagBlog@gmail.com )

The issue from my perspective is whether a segment of largely middle class white people who feel that they are the only citizens who work hard and pay taxes, feel extreme holster anxiety and then throw in everything from the Fairness Doctrine to Planned Parenthood into the mix constitutes a viable political movement in this country.

{ 44 comments… read them below or add one }

avatar Ian Rammelkamp February 24, 2010 at 7:39 pm

I might just be wasting my time challenging the false assumptions (and conclusions) that you make in your article, but I will attempt to explain why and how you are wrong.

But first I will touch on the part you got right… I think that your analysis that the Tea Party is fractured and doesn’t have a coherent message is correct. That the movement is being infiltrated by the big-business/big-government GOP, in an attempt to capitalize on the populist momentum, and the philosophical hypocrisy that the GOP perpetuates with regard to small government and abortion/marriage issues.

The part that you misinterpret, which your title and opening paragraphs indicate, but the article doesn’t detail, is the so called hypocrisy of the desire for small/limited government and government services like police, education, and parks, or Medicare and Social Security.

What you fail to understand is that in the U.S.A we have a multi-tiered government system. We have local city governments, State Governments, and the Federal Government. The vast majority of the size of government, and wealth redistribution arguments that have been made by Libertarians (from which the Tea Party movement was born) are against the expansion of the Federal Government and their programs. Most Libertarians think that local and state governments should have more relative governing power than the federal government. The federal government doesn’t provide most of the roads, police, or park services, unless you consider all of the pork and earmarks that our Congress men and women add to bills (which I am sure you are not in favor of).

So it is a mistake to claim hypocrisy on a group of people who are against the further expansion of the power and scope of the Federal tier of the government because they had a state funded public education, or drive on the state funded roads, or require security from the locally funded police force.

And really this distinction is why it is called the Tea Party. It is an attempt to hearken the desires of (many of) the Founding Fathers; the distribution of power through the multi-tiered system, and the limited power that the Constitution provides for the Federal tier.

Nobody (or very few) is arguing for Anarchy, and a total lack of government, so you can burn that strawman yourself!


avatar Rob February 24, 2010 at 9:43 pm

Well stated.


avatar PSD February 24, 2010 at 10:01 pm

Props to you as well Ian, for a logical, coherent rebuttal. Of course we have a lot of divergent viewpoints, but I appreciate the chance to debate them sensibly, as I’ll do when I have some time to think…


avatar annagrace February 25, 2010 at 12:16 am

Ian- thank you for your response. You may speak for the Libertarian response to our multi-tiered government, that “state and local governments should have more relative power than the federal government,” but you are not speaking for the other groups who have allied themselves with the Tea Party movement. I have read the declarations and postings of the Conservative Networking Group of San Diego, San Diego Tea Party Nation and the Tea Party Patriots in addition to the two specific groups that I cited in my article.

The consistent message is one of being anti-government. That is a substantially different position than yours of local government having more relative power. Nor is the anti-government position the same as being for small government. There is a deeply troubling aspect to the anti-government verbiage in conjunction with the thinly veiled threats of violence that I have read. Ron Paul may have kicked off his tea party in 2007, but these other groups didn’t get their serious game on until the Republicans, who had run the country into the ground on virtually every level, and run up the national debt, were out of power and a Democrat, who also happens to be African-American, was elected.

All of the groups take issue with having to participate in the redistribution of wealth. Let’s call it what it is in unvarnished English-they don’t want to pay taxes.
If there is an unwillingness on the part of citizens to pay taxes, if they see taxes as unfair, it really doesn’t matter whether you are talking about local parks, state parks or federal parks. I don’t see the commitment to parks and libraries and public infrastructure. (Or regulations and public safeguards.) The Republican Assembly candidate Bill Wells, quoted above, said people “want to take back their government, take control of their lives and keep what they earn.” I maintain that it is utter hypocrisy for anyone to feel entitled to keep what he or she earns and then hang out in a public park, provided by those who are willing to assume their share of providing for the common good.


avatar Ian Rammelkamp February 25, 2010 at 3:51 pm

Who is taking the anti-government (which you equate with Anarchy) position?

Most of these people want to move back toward the government system that the Constitution provides. Hence the name “the Tea Party”.

And to draw a causal connection between the traction of populist limited government movement and the election of a black president is absolutely ludicrous. A prime example of what is called the “race card”.

Also, limited government constitutionalists are not unwilling to pay taxes. In fact, one cannot believe in the power, sanctity, and importance of the U.S. Constitution and be unwilling to pay taxes. Article I, Section 8, clearly states that the government can levy taxes on citizens. The problem is how they are levied.

You only perceive hypocrisy in the movement because you clearly don’t understand it.


avatar annagrace February 26, 2010 at 2:23 pm

Ian- Will the you/Libertarians be attending the Tea Party tomorrow? I am genuinely interested in your response. I checked the SDLP site and didn’t find any information on the subject.

Here’s the San Diego Libertarian Party website for our readers: http://www.sdlp.org/
and here’s the Libertarian Party Platform (2008) http://www.lp.org/platform


avatar Ian Rammelkamp February 26, 2010 at 4:27 pm


No I won’t be going. I have never been to any kind of rally like that, I don’t really see the point. I would rather spend my extra time explaining to you the virtues of a limited government.


avatar Frank Gormlie February 26, 2010 at 4:34 pm

Ian, seems like you’ve toned down your rhetoric – or maybe it just seems that way after “talking” with Roger. Lefties want a government strong enough to provide a safety net but there’s enough anarchists in us that really don’t want a huge government. The one we have is spending most of our money on the Pentagon and wars and military bases around the globe. Who appointed us as the global cop?


avatar Ian Rammelkamp February 26, 2010 at 4:47 pm

Frank, my rhetoric hasn’t been toned.

In fact, if you read closely, my posts here are an attempt tone down the rhetoric on this site.

It seems like you have a good, active, local readership, and I think you would gain more headway in your cause(s) if you presented your, and the other authors on this site, ideas in a more thoughtful, analytical and balanced manner.


avatar annagrace February 26, 2010 at 3:45 pm

One other thing Ian. Before excoriating me for playing the race card, please take a look at one Tea Party organizer’s website.

As a Libertarian you may want to distance yourself from this particular Tea Party group, and you and Jim may want to claim that the Libertarians are the REAL Tea Party, but I stand by my claim that racism has been a motivating force within the Tea Party movement. You all duke it out with each other.


avatar Ian Rammelkamp February 26, 2010 at 4:34 pm

I didn’t look too long on the webpage that you provided, but I didn’t see anything racist. I see a bad attempt at humor/satire, and an unfounded fear of our President, who happens to be black.

I have seen the (false) causal connection between the election of a black president and the limited government tea-party movement made on this website a few times in the last week. The real reason the Tea Party movement has gained so much traction lately has nothing (ok… maybe some for those on the fringe) to do with race, but it has to do with the current economic condition, and the associated government meddling.


avatar Ian Rammelkamp February 26, 2010 at 11:05 pm

Why are you so interested in this? Why are you so concerned with some fringe black religion when the federal government is being expanded by both ends of the political spectrum?

Why not focus on the issues that matter, and effect us all?


avatar Jim Noble February 27, 2010 at 11:20 pm

annagrace; (*and all)

It is worthy for you to note, that if I went to the web, started a “meetup”, and claimed it was an Liberal meeting, would you blindly believe it?

The site you linked is NOT a tea party site, it is not put forward by the Libertarian Party, and you’re not actually understanding the issue.

The issue at the center of this is the fact that you and your groups are giving creedence to fraudsters, not of the libertarian party, using the Tea Party slogan for their own devices.

Can you not see this? The Libertarian Party is Pro-Choice, as it is also lesss government.


avatar Patty Jones February 28, 2010 at 12:17 am

So, what shall we call them if they proclaim themselves to be of the Tea Party? Not trying to be a smart ass, but how are we to cull them? I would love to be able to ignore these people but they are filling the moderation queue with their hate and discontent.


avatar Ian Rammelkamp February 28, 2010 at 8:03 am

Why do you have to call them anything?

It seems you are suffering from a similar affliction as Roger, and his obsession with the radical black power fringe. More irony.


avatar Patty Jones February 28, 2010 at 10:06 am

I would just be wasting my time challenging the false assumptions (and conclusions) that you make in your comment, so I will NOT attempt to explain why and how you are wrong.

This comment is simply trollish because it adds nothing to the discussion and just serves to rile me up. Quite frankly the trolls are wearing on me today.


avatar PSD February 28, 2010 at 11:11 am

The fact is that the rally held yesterday was (correct me if I’m wrong) an official teabagger event. And in addition to small government protestors, there were anti-immigrant protestors, anti-black protestors, protestors waving guns around, protestors advocating for a government based on fundamentalist Christian teachings, and one lady who was even protesting water. These people lay claim to being at the center of your movement, so we call them teabaggers, since they show up at your events and claim to be part of your group. If you don’t want to be accused of supporting what they stand for, you’ve got to find a way to stop them from making themselves the face of your movement.


avatar annagrace February 28, 2010 at 11:35 am

You as Libertarians are giving credence to the fraudsters. The Libertarians at yesterday’s Tea Party stood in the midst of all those fraudsters which PSD details in his comment. Richard Rider, who according to his bio is affiliated with the Libertarian party, spoke to that crowd.

So if you are saying that Libertarians are different than those pretenders, and if they wish to disassociate themselves from the extremists, then why didn’t the Libertarians join us or have their very own rally in the adjacent area?

Your complaint is that the Tea Party movement has been co-opted from its original Libertarian roots. It wasn’t the progressives who did that- it’s your fellow conservatives. Your argument lies with them, not us.


avatar Jim Noble February 26, 2010 at 12:34 am

As a fellow libertarian, I applaud your rebuttal, and will save it for future discussions with the “Anti-Tea Party” groups. It is clear that the initiative of the Libertarians has been over run by many of the far right who have far too much to lose when we shift the balance of power back to the States and Local Governments. However, I agree it’s high time we tell Congress what we, the people, want.

For those of you who are opposed to the movement, realize that it has EVERYTHING in common with what you don’t like about the government, with a method of solving it. Give the powers back to the State to make these decisions, and let the constituents vote with their feet. If your state doesn’t pass the laws you want that better your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, you’re going to move to one that does. This means more tax income for those states, and better services. Lumping it all together under the federal umbrella has only lead to wasteful spending, disproportionate redistribution of funds for lobby and special interest groups, and and have lead to an overall distrust of the Federal systems.

Let’s bring things back closer to the People.


avatar PSD February 26, 2010 at 8:45 am

If that was the whole message, I’d be behind it wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, the main (public) focus of the movement is racism, revision of the tax system not to restore equality but to continue the ongoing upward redistribution of wealth, and religious conservatism and intolerance. I’m sorry the Republicans crashed your tea party (and didn’t even bring any crumpets), but they’re running the show with both their funds and rhetoric now.


avatar Ian Rammelkamp February 26, 2010 at 10:28 am

That is how the liberal media wants to portray the movement, in an attempt to subvert it. If the Tea Party movement has any chance of further traction the leaders need to explicitly denounce any racism with every opportunity.

A good analogy is the complicity of the Muslim world with regard to terrorism. The vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, even though many people over-generalize and think that all or most Muslims are terrorists. I am sure that as a “progressive” you don’t make that over-generalization, and call people out who do, but why not take this same stance to the Tea Party?

The lack of outrage in the Muslim community to acts of terror from within their community shows complicity. So I do agree that there should be more outrage from the leadership of the Tea Party against the racist fringe.

I will admit that many of the people in the movement are as misinformed as the liberal media (when I say liberal media I mean the portion with liberal bias, I am not implying that the media has a liberal bias as a whole) and their simpleton attacks on the limited government philosophy, but it is a populist movement in it’s infancy, so that is to be expected.


avatar Frank Gormlie February 26, 2010 at 10:34 am

Yes, that would be an excellent start: denounce the racism within its midst.


avatar Ian Rammelkamp February 26, 2010 at 10:47 am

So Frank, do you think that all Muslims are terrorists? Would you advocate that position?

If your answer is “no”, you are a hypocrite, because you don’t make the same distinction from the fringe to the whole with regard to the Tea Party.


avatar Frank Gormlie February 26, 2010 at 11:17 am

Ian, you’ve been coming onto this site for last several days not really engaging in discussions but instead leaving comments such as this. You are starting to act and write like a true troll. Tell me you’re not.


avatar Ian Rammelkamp February 26, 2010 at 11:32 am

I have engaged in many discussions, it is laughable for you to say otherwise.

If you have a problem with the points I have raised, challenge them.

The analogy I have provided is very succinct. If you don’t understand it then I don’t know what to say.

I have lived in OB my entire life, I am a 3rd generation Obecian. I am posting here under my real name. Hardly internet troll characteristics.

Name calling only makes YOU look bad…


avatar Frank Gormlie February 26, 2010 at 11:44 am

Real quick, cuz I don’t have the time to engage in your fantasy world. You claim Tea Party people are only about small government. Yet you ignore all the other stuff. That’s like saying the Confederacy was only about states’ rights – and had nothing to do with preserving slavery.

We have taxation WITH representation. What’s your beef exactly? Your anger is misdirected. Try facing your anger at those who are really taking advantage of you, like the banks, the ruling class, the large corporations, the oil companies – some of whom are financing the Tea Party efforts.


avatar Ian Rammelkamp February 26, 2010 at 12:08 pm

Fantasy world? It is clear to anyone with any analytical skills who lives in the fantasy world…. I am presenting ideas in a clear, succinct manner, I am making light of misunderstandings and misrepresentations, and you tell me I am living in a fantasy world?

It is debatable whether we have taxation with or without representation on the Federal Level. The argument is that the vast majority of our tax money goes to the Federal Government where it is used to fund wars, bank bailouts, to subsidize oil companies, big business (health care, auto companies, etc.), and pet projects through ear marks and pork.

Individuals are so far removed from their representation on the federal level, that the effect of the individual is almost non-existent. By limiting the Federal Government, and shifting the power of our representation closer to home, the individual is given more power, and more control of their leadership.

It is the large Federal Government that feeds the banks, ruling class, large corporations, and oil companies, providing them favor and advantage over the little guy.

To say that I “ignore all the other stuff”, pretty much shows that you haven’t read a word that I have written (or maybe you just don’t understand it…). My first post details the part that I thought the original author got correct.

avatar PSD February 24, 2010 at 9:58 pm

Stellar piece, Anna!


avatar nunya February 25, 2010 at 9:46 am

Thank you Anna.


avatar Confused February 26, 2010 at 7:46 pm

You lost me on the road thing. I thought roads were paid for with gas taxes which are a use tax.


avatar PSD February 27, 2010 at 1:02 am

Who cares if America’s favorite imaginary friend is black? Would you love him less then?


avatar nunya February 28, 2010 at 1:27 pm

Um, why are we feeding the troll?


avatar Jim Noble February 26, 2010 at 12:19 pm

Ian, I don’t think that most of the people that are on the far edges of this conversation truly understand what the Tea Party movement is. Sadly, we have had a dilution? (more of a overthrow) of the Tea Party moniker, by the far right, odd nut jobs, and other splinter factions that wish to ride the coat tails of this movement.

I think that we need to continue to educate people of the following:
1) The Tea Party Movement is a Libertarian movement. Not GOP, bible thumpers, gun advocates, or any other splinter faction.
2) Any group using the Tea Party term, should be thoroughly investigated to see if they are in fact Libertarian based
3) The Libertarian party needs to address this issue with Media campaigns, word of mouth, and internet media.
4) The left is our allies in this battle, not our enemy. Libertarians are truly middle of the road, we want social programs to succeed, and we see smaller federal government as a solution to that end.

For those of you who continue to call the Libertarian Tea Party movement racist, fascist or misguided, I pose to you, have you read the Libertarian documentation on the Tea Party? Show me where it is those things, and I will happily apologize.

However, if the groups that are demonstrating are not Libertarians, or Libertarian backed, please, stop giving them ANY credit for the Tea Party movement, call them what they are. Frauds.


avatar Frank Gormlie February 26, 2010 at 12:38 pm

Ian, over the last couple days you have called me a hypocrite and called this blog a dehumanizing blog. So much for treating differences lightly. I notice you did not respond to the libertarian stance on a woman’s choice. What is it again?


avatar Frank Gormlie February 26, 2010 at 12:43 pm

I applaud every effort to recapture the tea party movement from the racists and fascists. But they are in control, so quit telling me they aren’t. Okay, so there’s factions here and there who are different. Great. We just started a Coffee Party movement.


avatar Frank Gormlie February 26, 2010 at 12:48 pm

It is true, that libertarians and leftists do have areas in common. When you guys oust the racists, we’ll party with ya. I’m not holding my breath however, as I know how strong they are. I’m sorry they took over your party, guys, but they have. If you doubt the control the racists have over the TPs look at the signs, the symbols, the speeches given. The TP affair recently in El Cajon is an example of what happens when you let the GOP in.

A lot of us progressives are really pissed off at the leadership of the Democratic Party due to their continued empire building. So you guys kick the racists out and we’ll kick the empire builders out, then we’ll really party.


avatar Ian Rammelkamp February 26, 2010 at 4:35 pm

Jim, I agree.


avatar Jim Noble February 28, 2010 at 11:41 pm

Well, I guess we won’t get to work with the Liberals and their racists until we get the racists out of the Libertarian party.

Please, you tar everyone with the same brush, yet can’t look into your own party and say that it is pristine and lily white either. Instead of continuing to WIDEN the divide, perhaps, in a rare display of faith, and good citizenship, you could work together with us to remove the racists that exist in ALL OF THE PARTIES, including your own. Or better yet, we fix all the more important stuff that’s broken, and show these racists that we as a combined group, won’t be swayed by their ignorance.

Or is that too much of a stretch?


avatar Ian Rammelkamp February 26, 2010 at 1:21 pm

Frank, I posed the hypocrite comment as a hypothetical, in the context of an article that calls the Tea Party movement, and limited government hypocritical, in an attempt to show you how your over-generalizations of the movement are incorrect.

I called the blog dehumanizing as a sort of reductio ad absurdum argument in the context of a discussion comparing calling the vagrant youth of OB “trolls” to calling black people the “n word”, and the dehumanization of those labels. And I said that if that is the standard, then this sites continued use of the label “teabaggers”, fits right in. (These are comments that you have still not moderated…. for everyone else to see)

Please sharpen your analytical pencil.

The stance on Woman’s Choice is complicated. Personally I am Pro-Choice, but I do recognize the validity of the Pro-Life argument, insomuch as the alive, but unborn, should also be given the unalienable rights that all humans should be given. The reason that issue is complicated is that there are instances where the rights of the mother and the rights of the unborn child are in direct conflict with each other.


avatar annagrace February 26, 2010 at 4:57 pm

Ian- you are either pro-choice or anti-choice. When you use the term pro-life, you have chosen to remove a woman who is pregnant, a woman who happens to be a life too, from the equation. As a man Ian you absolutely do not have the right to minimize me, a woman, as a “life.”


avatar Ian Rammelkamp February 26, 2010 at 5:06 pm

Did you miss the part where I said I was Pro-Choice?


avatar annagrace February 26, 2010 at 5:16 pm

No I didn’t miss that post Ian. I did look at the Libertarian platform. Here it is “Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.”

That means the Libertarian party does not support the Supreme Court Decision of Roe v Wade. It’s that simple Ian. Women are not “forced” to have abortions. The truth is that one out of three women go through an incredibly agonizing decision and decide to have an abortion. The birth control didn’t work; sheer ignorance; the heat of passion; cancer; rape; incest.

You may be Pro-choice, but the Libertarian platform isn’t.


avatar Ian Rammelkamp February 26, 2010 at 6:46 pm

The quote is pretty much an explanation of pro-choice. What it means is that each person should be able to decide what is right for themselves, that the government shouldn’t be involved with the decision. How is that not Pro Choice?

If I am misunderstanding something here please explain, I am open to correction…. As you said, I am a man, so I am probably not as well versed on this issue that you are.


avatar Brian February 28, 2010 at 10:38 am

ROFL. I’m not sure how that sentence could be any MORE pro-choice.


Leave a Comment

Before clicking Submit, please complete this simple statement to help us weed out the bots... Thank you! *

{ 1 trackback }

Older Article:

Newer Article: