As bait, it seems to have worked quite well...

As the carnies say: Hey, rube!

And I sure as hell wouldn't mind being labeled an Anti-Federalist, if it puts me in Jefferson's corner.

I had you in mind when I wrote that part, and I meant it with respect... you are the most Anti-Federalist person I'm acquainted with.

As to the rest: It may be my fault for not spelling it out in words of one syllable, but I was talking about political philosophy, not voter registration or party affiliation.

George Wallace was a "States' rights" advocate, albeit on a very narrow issue. So were the founders of the Confederacy - similar issue, too - and they coopted Jefferson's words wholesale. (cf. Ellis' biography of Jefferson, American Sphinx) So many of the publicly bigoted Dixiecrats wrapped themselves in the stars and bars of "State's rights" that the term practically became synonymous with segregation. Do you need reminding that the Solid South was solidly Democrat as a direct reaction to Reconstruction? Like a marriage of convenience, they joined the Democrats because Republicans were the Devil incarnate, but their agenda was their own.

Other sorts of white supremacists and 'militias' are fond of cloaking themselves in Jefferson's mantle, too. They get an awful lot of mileage out af a sentence or two in the Declaration. Do I compare them to Jefferson? I do not, but I am not blind to the antecedents of their rhetoric, however twisted. Do they compare themselves to him? Most assuredly.

"Paroxysm of moral rectitude"? Try Phyllis Schlafly or Pat Robertson (both ostensibly Republicans), or the continually recurring attempts to amend the Constitution regarding 'flag desecration', or the anti-abortion plank of the Republican Party's national platform. In other words, Big Government is anathema unless it suits the purpose of the moment - to my mind, blatant hypocrisy.

"Moral inversion"? My morals have nothing at all to do with how good works are funded. I live on the poverty line, Tom - were it not for my job in a Subway franchise I would not eat - which limits my personal charitable contributions to an occasional unit of blood. Why else do you think I need to rely on public libraries for Internet access? Nonetheless I cannot bring myself to resent the taxes withheld from my meager paychecks, because I'm capable of seeing larger issues, greater needs and the necessity of public funding without a red film of rage obscuring my vision. I make sandwiches for people with those needs, right here in Appalachia. They're my neighbors, my volunteer fire fighters and EMTs, and the teachers and librarians, too. My taxes purchased, among other things, the computers that give me and thousands of others like me an equal voice, without which 'free speech' is merely an empty promise.

Since I have not commented on this issue before, considering its subject beneath notice: I personally think Clinton was the most morally abhorrent person to ever have held the office of President - but because I'm a 'liberal' I'm not capable of independent thought, am I, Tom...

Hmmm... did I miss anything important?

I may surprise you by saying that there is a lot philosophically about Libertarianism that I admire; furthermore, I am not necessarily proud to be a registered Democrat, but Pennsylvania is a closed-primary state - no party, no vote. The Libertarian Party exists here, but so far it has mainly managed to attract candidates of the fringe variety you once mentioned were an embarassment at party conventions; i.e., no candidate, no vote, and I get the impression that it's like that pretty much all over the country. So, I'm going to try very hard to offer a suggestion without 'sounding' disrespectful, and I mean this to be constructive.

Get off the Net, get off your ass, and use the incredible energy and vehemence you pour into these posts and

RUN FOR OFFICE, TOM

You obviously don't like some of the laws you live under... Change them, in the way the Framers gave us to use.

Sincerely,

E'