DO WE NEED A SECOND PARTY?

DO WE NEED A SECOND PARTY? 

by Michael Peroutka

When we hear political commentary today, we frequently hear the word “bipartisan” used in a positive sense.

For example, “the bill received bipartisan support”; or “the issue was studied by a bipartisan commission”.

Webster defines bipartisan as “cooperation and agreement between two major political parties”.

This got me to thinking.

It seems to me that from a legal, constitutional standpoint, the major parties cooperate and agree on, well…everything.

For example, they obviously agree that Congress does not have to follow the limits set by Article One, Section Eight which enumerates the authorized areas of government spending.

The major parties are also in unison on allowing the Federal Reserve to print phony, fiat money that inflates our currency and steals our productivity.

The major parties are also “bipartisan” about funding non-defensive, unconstitutional wars which murder millions and endanger (not enhance) our own safety.

They have also agreed to allow the murder of more than fifty million innocent American children during the past forty years.

And they haven’t done anything to impeach an executive who claims he can kill anyone of us whenever he pleases.

In fact, I can’t really think of one important thing that the major parties are NOT bipartisan about.   They don’t seem to be opposites so much as they seem to be partners.

Some people say we need a third party. 

Maybe what we really need is a…second party.

 

This is MAP for IOTC bringing you TAV.