Zano is trying to label me as a Republican Fundamentalist. I am neither. However I do hold to the fundamental principles found in the Constitution and the Catholic faith. I can’t say that I disagree with Zano’s last post because, as usual, the scant specifics he offers come in the form of ‘knock knock’ jokes. If wit truly is “educated insolence” than let’s educate Zano, so someday his wit reaches some level of relevance. Many Americans have learned to doubt the facts the ‘experts’ espouse, because so often their facts have fallen short. One such Obama Administration fact is this, “The average family would annually save 2,500 under Obamacare.” See Zano, that’s a specific? It’s a specific claim that has proven to be false.

The polarization of which Zano speaks is the direct cause of the Democrats. Remember Obamacare? Obamacare was a polarizing legislation. The Democrats did not seek Republican cooperation because they didn’t need Republicans to get it passed. Arguably the most far reaching, complicated, convoluted, and controversial legislation in our nation’s history had no bipartisan support. That creates deep polarity. Even after promising the Catholic bishops a conscientious objection clause in the legislation, Obamacare forced people and institutions of faith to participate in the killing of children (abortion). This leads to polarization. Then there’s the changing of the definition of marriage through the courts. This led to polarization.

My differences with Mick Zano are more on priority and principle. My priorities involve the virtuous education and protection of children, families, the constitution, and our republic, rather than the creation new laws. The progressive politics expressed through the Obama administration lead to the de-moralization of children, the destruction of the family, and the compromising of the constitution through federal overreach.

My principles are fundamental assumptions upon which all truth can be attained and expressed. Zano has not argued against the fundamental principles upon which I base my perspective, but I’ll give him another chance—a chance is parole officer is not likely to offer:

1.) Every individual is endowed at conception by their Creator with unalienable rights:

Science increasingly shows us that the total genetic makeup of a human being is gained at conception, therefore it is most reasonable to recognize an individual’s constitutional rights at conception. If not conception, then when and why? The third trimester? Why, because nine evenly divides by three? Birth? Why? Because the naked eye can now bear witness to the murder? When the umbilical cord is cut? Why? Because the child is no longer biologically linked to the mother? When the child can speak? Why? Because the child can say “no?” The age of reason? When the child moves out of the parent’s house? At what point does a human being gain the legal and constitutional protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? I say that the only reasonable answer is conception, and nobody else, including Mick Zano—especially Mick Zano—has ever provided me with another reasonable answer. The cult of the Democratic Party disallows this honest and scientifically-backed conclusion.

2.) Reproduction is an essential element of sexuality and sexuality is an essential element of marriage:

As our society began separating the pursuit of sexual pleasure from the process of procreation, we see an increase in addictive sexual pursuits (lust), divorce, and fatherless children being the direct result. That’s a fact. Now we change the definition of marriage through the courts to encourage further pursuit of sexuality devoid of procreative potential. Along with this we listen to progressives teaching children “facts” like “people are born gay and can’t change,” or “If a boy feels like a girl, then they should start identifying as a girl and even go so far as having a sex-change operation.” These assertions are based on lies. There is no “gay” gene. Not only that, but the primary common link between same-sex attraction and genetic confusion is found in the abandonment or abuse of the biological father; fatherless children are the consequences of the progressive sexual revolution. That’s the fact.

3.) The traditional family is the microcosmic cell of the macrocosmic society:

The traditional family precedes civilization. It is the atomic bases upon which the molecular society rests. Progressive politics have worked to undermine the traditional family through the promotion of birth control, abortion, gay marriage, and pornography. Yes, progressives have argued and encouraged the protection of pornography as free expression, while simultaneously suppressing the public expression of religious principles. Pornography involves the objectifying of sexual acts for the viewing of a third party, and the normalizing of pornographic expression has led directly to the de-moralization of children, the breakup of families, and to the sexual abuse and enslavement of increasingly younger women.

4) Freedom of conscience is an essential constitutional liberty:

This essential liberty is increasingly under attack. Christians are being forced by the federal government to shut down hospitals, adoption agencies, and businesses because they refuse to provide birth control, cater to gay weddings, and work with gay couples in the case of adoption.

These are four of the fundamental principles upon which my perspective is established, and although I have no delusions about the virtues of the established Republican Party, I do believe that the American people can deputize and use the Republican Party to oppose the unconstitutional Democratic power grab. Although, I do agree with Zano and progressives on issues involving the military spending and environmental concerns, I don’t trust the Democratic Party enough to believe that they won’t simply exploit these issues for their own continued power grab. The ball is in your court, Zano.  Speaking of which, I hope you’re not in court this week. I have set aside a bail fund for you and the Ghetto Shaman but I’m sure, like many of your arguments, it will fall short of the mark.

Knock, knock!

Who’s there?

Principles.

Principles who?

Principles who go repeatedly trampled by your empty rhetoric, Zano.

Sorry, I’m still working on the haiku version. Can I still submit that separately?