A Republican Platform For The 21st Century
by John T. SimpsonI have been a proud conservative Republican my entire life. My father and Jimmy Carter saw to that. My first vote ever was for Ronald Reagan in 1980, and I have never voted for a Democrat. Ever. Even today, the reasons for my being so have not changed, despite the media’s and liberal Democrats’ tireless efforts to discredit my belief system. Though the times may change, core principles never do. I have also served this nation proudly in uniform for six years, and don’t regret a minute of it.
In the early 1980s, my military service brought me to some of the darker corners of the world. I spent time in South Korea and Marcos’ Philippines when both countries were under martial law. Knowing I could be shot just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time really woke me up to what exactly it is we have here in America. Seeing a thousand Vietnamese Boat People pulled out of the South China Sea in one day only reinforced my belief in America, Sweet Land of Liberty.
Today, the Party of Lincoln and Reagan appears to be in political disarray, which is why I am writing this OpEd now. Yet many promising developments, along with some huge mistakes by Congress and the Obama Administration, have opened many new doors for us. If only we will enter.
I know not all conservatives and Republicans will agree with my recommendations. But perhaps by throwing this all out there, you will realize as I do that a major debate on the direction of the party, in this exciting and danger-fraught age of the New Millennium, is not only necessary but vital if we are to survive as a viable political entity in America. So, On With The Show.
LOVE OF AMERICA: I don’t know about you, but I was totally disgusted with President Obama’s shameless Apology Tour around the world. Apologize to Europeans, on whom we’ve spent untold oceans of blood and treasure to rescue and defend over a century? Apologize to banana republic dictators like Chavez and Ortega in Latin America? To allow them to slander us as Imperialists, even as they oppress their own peoples? How am I supposed to feel proud as an American now?
Spike Spencer’s OpEd “When In Rome, Fight Anti-Americanism” really sums it up for me. We Republicans and conservatives need to be a lot more vocal on what we and America really stand for and represent, i.e. the “Shining City on a Hill,” as Reagan so eloquently put it. We are not the Great Satan. Not by a damn sight! Liberals may be content to prostrate themselves contritely before dictators. I am not, as I am sure many of you aren’t. I certainly know now Spike Spencer isn’t.
We need more Spikes! And we need to be a lot more specific and vocal on exactly why it is we all love America. Those words and specificity will stand in stark contrast to the relentless America-bashing by liberal Democrats and the Left. Don’t just tell people we love America. Tell them why.
There really is no shortage of reasons. The Marshall Plan ring any bells? Indonesian Tsunami aid, which our Marines even disarmed themselves to deliver, going above and beyond the call? And forget the Left and the Obamamedia. Most Americans really do eat that stuff up. It’s called pride, love of America and self-respect, character traits that are as foreign to Lefties as clean underwear.
–
BIG GOVERNMENT: James Madison famously stated “if men were angels, government would not be necessary.” Conversely, if governments were angels, detractors like us would not be necessary. But big government is far from angelic. In fact, it is outright demonic in many ways, trampling the rights of citizens over the most trivial and insignificant of matters. The larger government grows, the smaller we become, and the more government becomes our master instead of our servant.
We need to promote the outright slashing of the black hole money pit that our government has become, as well as its wholesale reduction. It is also a major sore spot with many Americans when Democrats like John Murtha get massive funding for airports in the middle of nowhere that just happen to bear his name. We need to root out all those pork projects, put them on full public display, and slam the President and the Congress without mercy or relent on them
Make them campaign issues. Voters are not partial to politicians who glut themselves at the trough of our tax dollars in order to aggrandize themselves. We need to hammer Democrats on this issue without quarter, as they slam us on so many issues. The recent Tea Parties were a very good start, but that shotgunning approach now needs to be focused on specific targets.
It seems a very good time to me to resurrect Sen. William Proxmire’s Golden Fleece Award in full measure. Don’t just tell the public the Democrats are wasting public tax dollars. Slow them where. Sen. Proxmire’s own prime example of the Department of Education spending $219,592 in a “curriculum package” to teach college students how to watch television is a real model of what to do.
Let’s use those examples as needles with which we can pin liberal Democrat butterflies under the political glass for all to see. Like the deserted and overfunded John Murtha Airport, they won’t be very hard to find. The real difficulty will be deciding on which outrageous pork projects to choose!
–
FOREIGN POLICY: I am a total Reaganite in this regard. Yet it is Democrat John F. Kennedy who summed up my feelings best on this subject in his Inaugural Address:
“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”
President Obama’s may as well have read like this:
“Let every nation know that we are sorry, and do not wish them ill, no matter how much ill they wish on us. We will pay any price in pride and self-respect, bear any insult, befriend any mortal foe, in order to assure my reputation as a nice guy. I’m not like the other one. And thank you for not blaming me for things that happened when I was three months old.”
The current Obama Administration is dropping the ball everywhere on this, particularly Sudan. Not only is George Clooney unhappy with the present inaction by the government, Mia Farrow is now on a 21-day hunger strike over the situation in Sudan. Even rank liberals have expressed a desire to use whatever means necessary to stop the Sudanese genocide in Darfur, including military action.
I say we oblige them. Omar Bashir is now an international fugitive, and is still committing his genocide unabated and with impunity. We should demand the Sudanese government turn Bashir over to the ICC and stop their genocide or face all-out war. And if we must go it alone, or in tandem with other willing nations, it wouldn’t be the first time. There is right and there is wrong.
Which would be worse in the end? Wiping out Sudan’s genocidal regime and military infrastructure? Or standing by while yet another quarter-million Darfurians are exterminated? Some things are far worse than war. Like Auschwitz, for example. And Darfur.
Iran also needs a spanking over Roxana Saberi. If I were president now, I would give Iran’s thugocracy 72 hours to turn over Roxana, or we cut off their gasoline. See how fast they act when they’re looking at more gas rioting. And if that don’t work, warm up the B-52s and start wiping out their terrorist training camps and nuclear facilities, for starters.
Here’s how a REAL American president should speak and act with regard to the safety of American citizens abroad. Not that you’ll ever hear it from Carter II. Speaking of which. Hollywood Diplomacy isn’t working. Never has. And even liberals at HuffPo are now wondering why President Obama isn’t protecting American citizens abroad. How bad is that?
Neither should we. If dictatorships want to play, let them know that they’ll pay. That won’t happen with this government, of course. But it doesn’t mean we can’t express our vehement opinions on the subject, in stark contrast to the president’s. As I’m doing here. And have been.
We must also continue to win allies and new friends around the world with our generous aid, friendship and even protection. Though the press didn’t cover it much, President Bush was welcomed as a hero in Eastern Europe and Africa. Conversely, Poland, once very happy with Bush, is not in the least with the reneging Obama.
A strong Republican president can make an impact where it really counts. We can do nothing about those nations and people that despise us, even in our own country, except to point out how wrong they are. Repeatedly. And with the force of our convictions, and the overwhelming evidence of American generosity, good will and even heroism that cannot be denied.
–
GAY RIGHTS: The Democrats are absolutely murdering Republicans on gay rights. The GOP’s vehement opposition to the recent Matthew Shepherd Bill, supported far and wide by LGBTs and even law enforcement, was a fatal mistake, and only served to alienate the millions of LGBTs in America even further from the GOP, and drive them all straight into liberal Democrats’ arms yet once again. It was a huge symbolic victory for liberal Democrats, and a terrible political defeat for us.
I know many conservatives and Republicans find homosexuality distasteful, gay marriage even more so. Yet they’re here, they’re queer, and they ain’t goin’ nowhere. And they are an incredibly rich, powerful and numerous political force in America, with the power to propel candidates into office or sink them for good. I’d sure like a real shot at winning races in San Francisco! Don’t you? Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who share our core values there, even gays. But they will never vote R as things stand today vis-a-vis gay rights in the GOP. Let’s give them reasons to cast those R votes.
Republicans need to wake up to the realities of gay life in America. Gay marriage is fast becoming a reality, as it may soon may be in my home state of New Hampshire, and will no doubt be a nationwide reality in the next decade. That’s a fact. On gay rights, we conservatives and Republicans are the political mammoths of the modern age. If the caveman liberal Democrats are not spearing us and feasting on our flesh, we are sinking into political tar pits of our own making.
We must wake up to the reality that gay Americans are a political force to be reckoned with. We continue to ignore that very basic and profound political reality at our own peril. We could also score major political points with LGBTs in one area the Democrats are hopelessly weak on: the horrific persecution of gays around the world, particularly the de facto gay genocide in Iran.
We should begin targeting and denouncing oppressive regimes like Iran’s, Cuba’s and Venezuela’s that persecute, terrorize and even slaughter gays like cattle, as we rightfully should anyway. It would go a long way in bringing many LGBTs into the Republican fold, given Dems’ silence on the issue.
I would even go so far as to punish the Iraqi government in order for them to stop the officially sanctioned persecution of gays in Iraq, which is now rampant and could not be more horrific. What good is freeing Iraq from Saddam, only to allow the present government to facilitate the Al Qaeda-like systematic extermination of Iraqi LGBTs? Kind of defeats the purpose, doesn’t it?
–
IMMIGRATION: Again, liberal Democrats are beating us over the head with the club of ‘racist’ over the illegal immigration issue. Yet the successful stuffing of the Amnesty bill under Bush, driven by Rush Limbaugh and Herculean grassroots efforts, showed just how strong the undercurrent of opposition to illegal immigration in America really is, even from legal immigrants.
Again, we need not just oppose illegal immigration, but be specific as to why. The purpose of Ellis Island, where millions of legal immigrants were screened for diseases, psychosis and criminal records, has not changed, and should be our model. We welcome legal immigrants from all over with open arms. Always have.
But the protection of public health and safety must be paramount. We must state our case on legal immigration far more forcefully and eloquently than we have to date. I believe millions of Americans, the same who burned up the switchboards in Congress over amnesty, are dying to hear that message. I know I am.
–

THE BORDER: We need to lock the border up as tight as possible without totally restricting the free flow of trade. The Mexican cartels are to blame for Mexican drug violence that is raging out of control, not us, as SOS Clinton would have us believe. It is not Americans slaughtering cops, beheading rivals in Tijuana, or that have made Phoenix the kidnapping capital of the USA. It is the cartels. Those same cartels are using our border as the Viet Cong once used Cambodia’s.
And all that doesn’t even take into account Al Qaeda’s and Hezbollah’s attempts, some successful, in infiltrating our country. We are a nation at war. To continue to leave the Trojan Horse of our open border to stand will get a lot of innocent Americans dead in the end.
–
THE DRUG WAR: I’ve thought of a solution to the drug problem that may not go over very well with Republicans, and may even be more Libertarian in its approach. I say we legalize marijuana like alcohol, tax the shite out of it, and use that money to fight the real hard drug evils, of which cocaine and heroin are the most devastating. Come on! How many regular pot smokers do you folks in Hollywood know? I know dozens! Yet they are all normal and productive citizens who like lighting up after work, as many people like hitting the bars for a drink. Yet another reality we have to face.
What would be better? Continuing to waste billions in resources on stopping pot, which just ain’t gonna happen? Continuing to prosecute offenders and waste court resources on a relatively mild and very popular recreational drug? Or turning the situation around in our favor, as I have recommended? A bold statement, agreed. I seem to be making a career of them these days.
–
CLIMATE CHANGE: The American people are about to be slaughtered with draconian taxes and regulations on Global Warming bills, including Obama’s cap-and-tax scheme that may raise our electric bills by 50%. I already wrote a scathing Big Hollywood OpEd on this discredited Ponzi scheme-like fraud, that may just destroy the economy and our way of life if implemented.
We need to be as forceful with Congress on this issue as we were on amnesty. Bush, McCain and Congress were all for amnesty at that time, but they all knew where their bread was buttered, too. We need to remind them of that fact vis-a-vis The Great Global Warming Swindle.
31,000 scientists signed a petition declaring GW a scientific fraud. But that is not enough. We Republicans, as Reagan did, love the outdoors, and believe in sensible conservation. We much show our Sierra Club side. And speaking of clubs, whenever Lefties and GW Moonies slam us as tools of Big Oil, ask them how Al Gore’s net worth soared from $2M in 2000 to $100M today. Even Big Oil ain’t handing out that kind of money. A most Inconvenient Truth.
–
ABORTION: This is a subject that is very tormenting to me. I despise the mass disposal of human life it represents, yet the issue has touched on me personally as well. Until and unless Roe v. Wade is overturned (and let’s face it, that ain’t happening), we must also accept the reality of abortion in America as a legal right for women. Based on my own troubling experience with this issue, I do not believe sending women back to the days of back alleys and coat hangers is the way to go.
Yet I am also vehemently opposed to such barbaric and Dr. Mengele-like practices as partial birth abortion, or how much organizations like Planned Parenthood have made a cozy, profitable and blatantly corrupt industry out of infanticide on our tax dollars, and with full liberal Democrat support.
Some incredibly cold and inhuman practices by Planned Parenthood have even earned the term ‘black genocide’ by African-American activists. MLK’s niece, Dr. Alveda King, called the sweeping promotion of black abortions Planned Parenthood’s ‘racist agenda’.
A realistic and reasonable approach to yet another established reality in 21st Century America would go a long way in winning many hearts and minds. Conceding the issue of legalized abortion (as we should anyway, it’s been law for 34 years), along with other hot-button issues I have addressed here, could go a long way in winning the GOP many new gay, black and women voters, who may oppose Democrat policies but remain in the party for reasons given. Let’s give them an out.
In addition, by exposing the corruption rampant in the abortion industry in America today, especially regarding the Nazi-like Planned Parenthood practice of mass-marketing the abortion of black babies, we might even win over MLK’s niece. How phenomenal a political victory would THAT be?
IN SUMMARY
Many of you staunch conservatives, Republicans and devout Christians may consider some of my positions blasphemy, far left even. But if you look closely, they are the ultimate in Reaganite political pragmatism. You are all welcome to cling to the rigid and inflexible ideologies of the past. I would much rather accept 21st Century realities, and make some important political compromises and concessions in order to see some semblance of a Reaganite GOP survive, than to stand by and watch liberal left-wing Democrats turn America into a total one-party state. Is that what you want?
I believe my positions on immigration, foreign policy, love of America, reduced government, the border, the fraud of climate change and even the drug war are right in line with what President Reagan’s would have been, and are all hugely popular with millions of Americans. As to gay rights, abortion and the legalization of marijuana, I am merely facing the realities of the America we live in today. Those realities cannot be denied, any more than the brutal realities of today’s Islamist Iran can be denied by liberal Democrats.
Some adjustments on those latter issues must be made for the times, or we risk losing any future control over the former for all time, in Quixotic battles with windmills that will eventually rend us asunder politically. On the issue of abortion, a great deal of reform can be pursued in purist fashion that may even win us throngs of new female and black voters, if they see that our concerns on partial birth abortion and Planned Parenthood’s targeting of the black community for boffo business are genuine and real, and not just political camouflage to undermine freedom of choice.
Gay rights are now a 21st Century reality that should be accepted in full by both parties, as many issues like civil rights are now. To remain at odds with the tremendously powerful and hugely influential American gay community is to be like the hardline segregationists of old, who alienated every black American. It can only result in even more truckloads of votes and cash being queued at the DNC loading dock. Votes and cash we can ill afford to forego. I don’t want that. Do you?
I myself have built many new friendships and bridges to the gay community, both within and without America, in my relentless reporting and dissemination of investigative journalism on the Gay Holocaust in Iran. It is in fact that horrorshow, that Auschwitz for gays in Iran, that has caused me to re-evaluate my own perception of gays everywhere.
My heart breaks to think of how much innocent gays are suffering around the world, and it has stirred a compassion in me that just wasn’t there before. And it pains me to think that GOP representatives in Congress, in their heated opposition to what is in effect a symbolic bill named after Matthew Shepherd, one of America’s most well-known victims of real homophobia, may have burned some of those bridges and friendships for good by the anger and mistrust that kind of opposition inspires. How does that help us in rebuilding the party? Or attracting new voters and supporters?
Sorry. I’m with George Takei on this one.
Supporting gay rights in full measure is the right thing to do. And we have an opportunity here, by attacking the worldwide persecution of gays (which we should do anyway, just on basic human rights principles), to actually become their foot soldiers and heroes, something liberal Democrats are basically MIA on. They’re too busy trying to make friends with the gay butchers of Iran. Just like Chamberlain with Hitler. How many new gay votes do you think THAT would win us?
We can either accept new realities while sticking with the truly core issues that make us who we are, or we can sacrifice their future on the altar of rigid ideological purity. What’ll it be, boys? Yes or no? Many more issues, granted. I just wanted to get the debate rolling. But consider this also. If we make important political compromises as I’ve recommended, think of how many weapons we remove from the leftie liberal Democrat arsenal. They would then be forced to debate us toe-to-toe on all the other major issues outside gay rights and abortion. Those are battles they can never win.
Also let it be know far and wide, in Reagan-like “Let Poland Be Poland” fashion (which the Left also hated, but at least they’re consistent in betraying Poland), that I believe that we should let Fat People Be Fat, Gas Guzzlers Be Gas Guzzlers, Energy Burners Be Energy Burners (like Big Al), Gun Owners be Gun Owners, Hunters Be Hunters, Christians be Christians, Atheists Be Atheists, Straights Be Straights, Gays Be Gays, Tea Partiers Be Tea Partiers (of either party), Franken Be Franken, Moore Be Moore, Rush Be Rush, Beck Be Beck, O’Reilly Be A Factor, Stewart Be Daily, Government Be Small, Immigration Be Legal, and Smokers Be Smokers.
Unlike some people. I also believe we should let mass-murdering dictators like Omar Bashir, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong-Il also Be Smokers. ’nuff said. Discuss Amongst Yourselves. And remember, elections are only eighteen months away. Get busy, people!
See you in the next DHS report!
Oh, and did I forget? Let Specter Be Democrat. Was, anyway. And since LibDems have super-majorities now, it seems a great time for the GOP to clean house of all the RINOs that are a left-wing liberal cancer in our party, like Specter was. I won’t go so far as to write a DHS report on them, but we need to show them the door. If they want to be asses, they can do it on Dean’s dime, not ours. We will never get to where we need to go as a party as long as they’re subverting us from within.
To paraphrase President Bush, you are either with us, or you are with the Democrats. Make your choice, Senator McCain. You are free to leave too, if you like. You can either wise up, or push your amnesty bill from the other side of the aisle. We could sure use a hell of a lot fewer John McCains and Arlen Specters, and a hell of a lot more Jim DeMints. Fortunately, McCain may be following Specter shortly, anyway. And for the same reason. Hope Springs Eternal.
Amen, and God Bless America and Ronald Reagan
MAJOR UPDATE: Supreme Court Justice David Souter is retiring. Obama has a vacancy on SCOTUS now. If Republicans oppose an Obama nominee based on gay rights advocacy or non-extremist pro-choice positions, you can stick a fork in the GOP. And call me an Independent.
I’d rather climb off the mammoth while I can, as opposed to sinking into the tar with it.













Subscribe via RSS
257 Comments
I agree with most of what you say as a conservative Republican with Libertarian leanings. I believe in live and let live for the most part on social issues, gays should have every right short of marriage, legalize drugs(with exceptions), firm foreign policy, accept abortion (with limitations) even the morning after pill, enforce immigration laws, and Global Warming is a hoax. We need to modernize our stances indeed but not at the expense of our conservative beliefs, to be defined. The Founding Documents are a good place to begin. Carter gave us Reagan!
I have principles and core values, I can not or will not change. So, off to the tar pits for me.
I'm with you on the gay genocide in Iran.
But even in New York, a majority of voters don't support gay marriage. Obama and Biden didn't run on a pro-gay marriage platform. How is this a losing issue for Republicans?
I'll go you one better: if we abandon all our principles, the left will be defenseless.
Seriously, though. You sound like you're more concerned about which way the wind's blowing than about what's right.
I'm a Republican with Libertarian sympathies and I find many of your arguments to be quite reasonable.
You know, I was right with you up until you said we should give abortion a pass. Have you ever seen what a baby looks like after it has been aborted? Because I have and that image has been burned into my brain for the majority of my life. And it was a BABY! As in a juvenile human. Not a blob, not tissue, not non-descript cells. Speaking as a woman, I don't care if we DO go back to back alleys and coat-hangers. I bet a lot less women would risk getting pregnant if they had that to look forward to. Abortion is murder, the same as those Iranian mullah's murdering gays. People are people, not matter what.
That's what birth control is for. It's 99.whatever effective and if that's not good enough, DON'T HAVE SEX! What you are proposing is that we accede to mass murder. That's just . . . no, that's not an option and I don't care how many women might like us for it.
As for gay marriage, I am all for civil unions. In fact, I might be significantly more radical than most because I want the government completely out of marriage. If people want tax breaks and insurance, let the states pass laws recognizing civil unions and make straight & gay couples sign a government contract and leave marriage to the Church as it has been for most of history. I recognize that my belief in the studies that show the optimal environment to raise children in is with two heterosexual parents isn't popular but since these bills keep getting voted down, I'm apparently not alone.
My question about drug legalization is this: the war on drugs hasn't stopped ANY drugs, what difference will legalizing one drug make? I thought the Mexican cartels were smuggling hard drugs not just pot. And to borrow from Zo, wouldn't taxing the snot out of marijuana require more government oversight? Which would mean bigger government (which is totally anti-libertarian).
Other than that, right up there with ya!
Don't mind the haters John. As a godless liberal, I have some mixed feelings seeing you give the GOP such good advice. While the unthinking absolutists will hate you for it, I'd be glad to see a party with some sanity on LGBT issues, abortion and immigration across the aisle. We Dems will be running the show for at least 2 years, probably more like 6 or 8 . . . a reasonable opposition to keep our wildest excesses in check is a better option than a total Republican death spiral. Good luck!
I think this is an interesting basis for renewal of the New Reagan Era for the Republican Party. There may be some problems on the far Right, but, as you say, sticking to the old model will not get us back in the game in order to stop the rapid downslide to Socialism. We have to attract more Gays, Spanish and other minorities to the party or we will be the Party of the few.
The Obama policies are killing our Republic and we must find a way to show him in the next elections that there is no blank check.
BTW, we need a manifesto before we need a platform. See>>> Mark Levin, A Conservative Manifesto.
I'm not going to debate you guys. I've stated my positions and given my reasons. I knew I was going to take mountains of shite from both the Right and the Left over this. The Left will consider me a reprobate Nazi, and you guys will consider me a Leftie Quisling. I've already said that. But you know what? My job was to get the stoves going and turn up the heat full blast. It's YOU guys that are in the kitchen now. Good Luck and Good Night!
John,
For the most part, the only strategy I see here is to essentially move ourselves to the left and become moderates in our platform. First and foremost, didn't we try some of this with Bush and even more so with McCain, getting our asses hand to us as a consequence? Second, if we move the GOP to the left, then we move the whole spectrum to the left, correct? So, what's to stop the Dems from moving even harder to the left, seeking to continue their differentiation to the GOP? In that case, what's change, other than the fact that we've abandoned our positions because they weren't popular? Now the left can cast us a cheap imitation and harp on the fact that we've changed our stripes to better match theirs, so they must be right! In that case, you;ve given them what they wanted and handed them more weapons for the fight. Great job there, John.
"You are all welcome to cling to the rigid and inflexible ideologies of the past. I would much rather accept 21st Century realities…"
I didn't realize morality had an expiration date. To say that something was true in the past and is untrue now is no different from saying it was true on Tuesday and became untrue on Thursday. If something is true, it's true yesterday, today, and a thousand years from now. Otherwise, what's the point of having principles? Or you could just be like liberals, support what is popular and have that warm fuzzy feeling of being one of the "good guys" without actually having to think about you stand for.
"…and make some important political compromises and concessions in order to see some semblance of a Reaganite GOP survive, than to stand by and watch liberal left-wing Democrats turn America into a total one-party state. Is that what you want?"
Except that your answer is to move the GOP to the left, thereby giving liberal Dems more of what they want and moving in the direction that their pushing. You might answer that we're not giving them everything that they want, but I would point out that we're giving them some of what they want and that's how they work, by taking a little bit at a time. And if you think you can preserve some aspects of conservatism, while abandoning others, think again. Our principles come from a whole worldview, whose elements are interdependent and mutually supportive. Abandon on cornerstone and you make the whole foundation unsound. And if you bothered to look, our most consistently conservative candidates and politicians tend to be social conservatives, including Reagan.
Let's have a little history lesson. A movement toward the abolition of slavery began in the American colonies in the 1750s. After the passing of most of the Founders, it died down during the 1820s, didn't see a resurgences until the 1840s and we didn't see an end to slavery until the 1860s. We didn't have integration until the 1960s. Those who fought for racial equality didn;t give up the fight or stop pressing. They succeeded, even when times grew dark.
Instead of amputating some of our fingers to feed the wolves or hiding ourselves away, we need to be engaging the culture, which we haven't done for a long time, despite yanking at the levers of power for years now. The second thing we need to do is figure out how to rearticulate our ideals to the present generation, painting a picture of our vision. The third thing we need to do is apply our principles with policies that address present issues and present circumstances. The fourth thing we need to do is rededicate ourselves to federalism and let certain issues be a matter for the states, like gay marriage and marijuana. Then we can move those battles to the local level, where we can win hearts and minds outside the halls of power
That's a plan for a 21st century GOP.
I'm an 80s guy.
I believe domestic policy should be modelled on the U.S. in the 1980s — foreign policy on Great Britain in the 1880s.
“Republicans need to wake up to the realities of gay life in America"? You mean Mormons, Catholics, conservative Protestants, Orthodox Christians, and the like have to shut up, right? I think liberal Democrats need to wake up to the realities of gay life.
I disagree with the argument that the “gay community,” so-called, is as powerful as you suggest, but that’s beside the point. Just because a group is powerful tells us nothing about their moral compass. Stalin was powerful.
This piece is Washington P.C.Get educated. Read Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, by Jeffrey Satinover, MD. “A twenty-five to thirty-year decrease in life expectancy.” I think conservatives know more about the "realities” than Hollywood cares to admit.
“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”-JFK
That's the stuff that got us mired in Vietnam. I prefer what President John Quincy Adams said:
"Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her [America's] heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.
But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. "
It is time to stop our silence. Too many conservatives have listened to their inner voice in the company of liberals. When a liberal makes snide comments about Sarah Palin, or Gitmo or taxing the rich, too often the conservative remains silent. It may be at the supermarket or at a son or daughters football or baseball game. Your voice says, now is not the time, it would be inappropriate to argue politics here. I say end the silence. Challenge liberal thoght wherever it is. It is not innappropriate anymore to let them have their way in public places. Be polite, be calm, but challenge the foolishness. I have. Standing in line to get my license I'll say to the line " Imagine when were standing in lines like this to get our healthcare." I have challenged professors in lecture halls filled with people booing and hissing at me as I defended conservative principles. Stop being silent. If not now, then when.
Anyone seen Beck's deal on Saturday? "Media Bias" show? Take that enthusiasm with some undeniable facts and more articles like this, and that would be something!
Could be some fer sure "brushfires" coming our way.
(brushfires) Not my words, TJ's!
When people talk their liberal foolishness by blaming republicans for the financial meltdown, or talk about Americas image around the world, talk about Michelle obamas 540 dollar shoes, or the 100 dollar a pound Kobe beef served at the whitehous on wednesday nights. When people talk about giving Obama a chance remind them how comfortable he is in the company of terrorists and dictators and how he bad mouths our parents and grandparents when he bad mouths our country over seas. Be polite, be calm, but never let it go unchallenged.
To the men and women of college age, lets feed their tactics back to them. Start staging sit ins and teach ins the way the liberals did in the sixties. Be polite and calm, but hold rally's and hand out fliers. Let them know that their hold on the public square is over. Some suggestions would be to have a video crew to watch your back. The liberals are violent and emotional and are more than willing to shut you down with pie throwing, threats, defacing your cars, if you put republican stickers on them, and shouting you down. The video camera will help when the university authorities shut you down. Use youtube and the other internet sites to spread the word on your protests, and to show the liberals as they try to stop you. Never back down.
On abortion, the polls not only show that it wouldn't be hard to build a pro-life majority to return abortion laws to the states but women also poll more pro-life than men do. Take a look at the polls that offer a range of options and break down the response demographics and ignore polls that give two options, biased questions, or ask about "Roe v. Wade" (which most voters don't really understand). As for gay rights, I think the Republicans would be betters served by defining marriage as a monogamy contract and stress the monogamy aspect. A stable monogamous gay or lesbian couple, while they may be living in sin as far as many religious people are concerned, is not really much of a threat to society or other people's children.
I agree with that. Even at work, though you might risk having some thin-skinned BO supporter try to go to HR (which has happened), challenge what they say. Tell them what's in store for them with cap and trade, tell them what's going to happen if healthcare is nationalized and tell them how their next in line for the next wave of taxation after they've sucked the rich dry.
Why are Republicans so afraid that homosexuals are not voting Republican? Despite the attempt by the Media to portray them as a massive voting block they are in reality a very, very small minority (10% is a lie, it's more like 3%). They will never vote Republican because anti-Christian bigotry is rampant among the homosexual community. By trying to placate such a small group, you risk alienating a much larger group who are natural Republicans: Blacks.
Republicans won't even have to change their platform. When polled on individual subjects (immigration, education, defense, economics, social issues) blacks consistently side with Republicans more often than Democrats. In fact the majority of blacks in California voted for Prop. 8, while the majority of whites did not. Even Obama oppose same-sex marriage. The only reason they don't vote Republican is because they have been told by the Media that Republicans are racists, even though a casual study of history will show the greatest racial atrocities in American history were committed by Democrats. If the black population vote for Republicans candidates in the same proportions as the rest of the population, Democrats will never win another major election.
Like, I said, discuss amongst yourselves. But I knew this was gonna happen…
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3a7_1187501259
Great book!
Who's going to post the "Everybody Lay Off John Simpson!" article tomorrow?
I disagree with you on much of this, but I can at least see where you're coming from–where you're not quite my definition of conservative, you're libertarian.
But hate crimes legislation, including the Matthew Shepherd bill, should not be supported by Republicans, conservatives, or libertarians. The crimes are already illegal, and heaping on extra punishment for perceived motivation makes some citizens more equal than others and is ripe for abuse.
Love to read some of our resident lawyers comments on the subject.
I completely agree, and I do talk about politic openly AND RESPECTFULLY. KEEPING YOUR COOL is key when talking to the leftist loons in public; because when it comes down to it, they have no ideas or facts, just spoon-fed talking points and emotions. The smarter ones generally just disagree and move on.
Three points: 1] I wish my conservative bona fides were as good as yours, as I turned 18 just in the nick of time to vote for Jimmy Carter. To my credit, that was the last Democrat presidential candidate I voted for, however, I did vote for Perot against, "read my lips" Bush I. We got Clinton because of that kind of thinking, so I think I've learned my lessons now. 2] Legalizing pot is a great idea, but I'd prefer if it weren't taxed. In fact, I think there should be no restriction on growing it for personal use at all. Drug problems ought to be treated as medical problems, and not legal ones, IMHO (Unless there is theft to support a habit, &c.). 3] You're right about gay rights. Conservatives get hammered on this issue for no logical reason. I'm a Christian with all of the views of homosexuality that entails, but if you read Paul logically, homosexuality is just one among many sins on his list, and none of us are innocent of them all. Besides, one of the greatest geniuses I ever knew was gay, and he was a great supporter of my work. We became best friends, and I cried bitter tears when he was one of the early victims of AIDS back in the mid 80's. He was a beautiful human being, just a homosexual, which became a non issue as I got to know him. All people war with their flesh, and none ought to be marginalized because of whatever their particular weakness is. Mine happens to be nubile young girls who like guitarists. LOL!
That……was alot to swallow. but thatnks for putting in the time to outline these issues and make some very good arguments. Well done. But I ask you, how about some suggestions for we in the rank and file, as to what we can & should be doing to turn things our way. I know about contacting our Congressmen, & I love the discussions here at BH, but we need to do more. Any ideas?
Here's the deal as I see it, Gordon. Though I DO understand your point. It was my opinion as well for a long time. But all crimes have degrees. First, Second, Third, you know. There are also degrees of crimes. One drug dealer taking a head from another is one thing. Taking a head shot because you're a fag, a little different. Is that blunt enough for you? And the symbolism of GOP support for Gay ANYTHING would have shot our stock up, instead of turning it to tar. EOM.
I agree with most of your points. Gay marriage doesn't bother me. I voted for the gay marriage prop in either '05 or '06, but supported Prop 8. I haven't changed my stand, but going to court to over turn a ballot when the people have voted is wrong; and should be illegal. I'm also not against abortion, but Plannedparenthood makes getting one too easy, and under 18 should need parental notification.
John, I just wanted to an addendum: I might have given you a fisking, but I respect that you're putting some thought into this and talking about these issues. Thanks for that.
BPT, Prop 8 won by 52-48. Not a landslide. I WILL say that I do not want the California Supreme Court legislating this issue. But the next vote will pass, IMHO. Times are moving forward. That's all I'm saying.
I wrote a lengthy post, agreeing in part and dissenting in part. It immediately went into moderation hell, never to be seen again. So now that others have jumped in and stated some of what I believe anyway, I'll make this shorter. LOVE OF AMERICA: I agree. BIG GOVERNMENT: I agree, and just want to add that we have to make it clear that we don't oppose government like a bunch of anarchists. We believe in limited government, doing only those things the Constitution allows or mandates, and not attempting to solve every problem which ever existed with outrageously expensive programs which invariably fail anyway. FOREIGN POLICY: We need one. We don't have one, unless you count placating enemies while insulting or ignoring allies. We need to make it clear that we want a vigorous foreign policy which promotes American interests and protects America's freedom to be different from almost everyone else. GAY RIGHTS: Unlike you, I'm not terribly concerned about what sex my neighbor is having so long as it isn't with children or animals. But I am opposed to gay marriage, for multiple reasons. That said, we can't look like we wish to impose a theologically-based belief in a sectarian society on an unwilling minority. We must make it clear that even if we oppose gay marriage, we will accept it as a matter of law if and when it is passed by a true vote, not court decisions. Thereafter, we may be opposed to it, but we're not going to riot in the streets over it. We should demand that same tolerance from the current minority if they become the majority. IMMIGRATION: We must cut it down from every direction until we have re-established the concept of assimilation and loyalty to the Constitution while eschewing all foreign loyalties. THE BORDERS: I am less worried about a Mexican illegal crossing into the country for a better life than I am about the terrorist coming through with him. I want illegal immigration stopped now, and the best place to do that is the borders. But national security is also involved, and we have allowed the left to turn that argument into charges of racism. THE DRUG WAR: We need to make it clear that we are fighting a real war with narco-terrorists and a metaphorical war on drug-addiction. Win the latter, and there is no need for the former with its huge toll in human life and money. CLIMATE CHANGE (formerly known as global warming): We have constantly spent so much time on disproving anthropomorphic global warming that we neglect to make it abundantly clear that clean air and clean water are highly-desirable and a noble goal. We can't let the left continue to conflate the two issues and tar us as uncaring boobs. We can't deny climate change, so let's do a good job of pointing out that climate has changed drastically for millions of years before we were here, so what we need to do is prepare for it, not act like demi-gods trying to stop it. ABORTION: I hope we never abandon this issue. But we need to confine it to what the vast majority of Americans actually believe: Abortion should be limited to absolute medical necessity, very early in the pregnancy, and only to save the physical life of the mother, or to terminate the result of rape or incest. There are sound theological reasons to believe that life begins at conception. I don't happen to think so (but I'm close), yet the absolutist view will never prevail, so let's do the very best we can and hope we can convince the rest by compassionate counsel. And get the damned federal government out of it, and give the decision back to the states where it belongs.
Tom De Lay said it best to the French Prime Minister after listening to him excoriate America post 9/11. He asked M. Le Ministre "Do you speak German?"
"Mais non," came the replay.
"You're welcome," said De Lay as he turned his back.
As far as compromising to win elections, that comes perilously close to "The end justifies the means." I'd rather have principles than interest.
I'm with ya, Tad. But the monsters always seem to pull us there, don't we? I'm glad Reagan helped bring down the Berlin Wall. Kennedy would have cried. And now the New Europe loves us like heroes, because we helped remove the Soviet yoke. I'm down with that.
Very wise!
You know, next time, I'm just going to wait until you post and put a big ditto up in reply. This is exactly what I think we conservatives need. (And much better said than I could have done)
LOL! Hey Mike, on average, Howard Stern haters listened to his show for two hours and twenty minutes. Reason given? They wanted to know what he was going to say next. I'll bet Andy and John love this stuff, or you wouldn't be seeing it. And it's way too Nazi for HuffPo. I will be the only man in history to be called Stalin and Hitler in the same day. Love it.
These are not all my core values. Could I vote for a politician that has these as their platform? Sure. But will this platform endanger this country in the future? Yes but at a slower rate than we are moving today.
Maybe with a little time we will learn the value of life. Learn the value of family.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these United States; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King Obama is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Here's a shocka for ya! The first openly gay couple ever to sleep in the White House was Reagan's interior decorator, Ted Grabel, and his male lover, Archie Case in 1984. No interior decorator jokes, please.
http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/26670.html
As much as I dont want to admitted it, I found myself agreeing with you for the most part
I thought you meant LAY off, Mike, not lay off. Forgot about that piece. But you could be right
I'm sorry, but I refuse to just surrender on abortion and become pro choice, polls show that Americans are still sharply devided on this issue and you want us to give up and become pro choice just to get some feminist support? Abortion isn't a one sided supported issue.
The Reagan’s were friends with Rock Hudson, and generally were sympathetic to gays. I don’t think that he would be for gay marriage, however.
John a good decent well thought out article . I 'm on board with most of it. The drug thing… is iffy to me. I think pot is a gate way drug. Bad enough we have bars and liquor stores galore. Gay Marriage is a contradication in terms .Civil unoins sounds reasonable the Gays are protected under the law as they should be . I know of no civilzation in the history of man that sanctioned same sex marriage and is around today. Their was the AMAZON'S but who the hell has heard from them since the Trojan War and for good reason. No can't see it,. When two men or two women can produce life on their own I'll revisit my position.Till then thanks for the good read.
For all those who think this is turning left. Actually, it's not. It's turning further right. It reinforces the right of the individual over the right of the group. The best way to handle the gay issue is simply to declare ALL marriages equally valid as legal domestic partnerships and leave it up to the churches as to who will perform a marriage. As far as the government is concerned, it's not recognizing a marriage, it's recognizing a contract. Then each church can decide if they recognize something as a marriage. The current Republican stance is one that gives one group of people's religious views the force of law without that law protecting life, liberty, or property (my personal litmus test as to whether a law should exist or not)
Finally, I would make one addition: Adopt the Fair Tax. That would send our economy rocketing into the stratosphere and make it so that socialism will never happen in the US.
I agree Ronnie, if we changed our platform on abortion and gay marriage, would it get us anymore votes? I doubt it,
Hear Hear on the Fair Tax!
please get out of the stone age.
Heck, in fiercely liberal California, gay "marriage" doesn't fly. Furthermore, note that most pro-Obama Black voters voted FOR traditional marriage in the form of Prop 8. Despite the LBGT propoganda, Black people do NOT buy the "gay rights = civil rights" argument:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/18/a...
Black Democrats simply view homosexuality as a deviant lifestyle choice instead of a genetic trait like skin color. This view is reinforced by incidents like the DC City Council trying to sneak gay marriage into my hometown without public input. (And people wonder why the "gay marriage activist = KKK" view is prevalent in the Black community.) Thank God a pastor learned of sinister strategy and blew the whistle on the self-serving Council.
Heck, high profile people of the gay lifestyle like Elton John think gay "marriage" is a dumb idea:
http://www.protectmarriage.com/article/elton-john...
So, fighting against gay "marriage"-and its destructive long-term effects on American society-would help win over Black voters as well as disillusioned White evangelical Christians.
I know to the libertarians, they are the true conservatives, and todays folks are the "neocons", but to say that supporting abortion will take us further right (so that makes the dems and angry man hating feminists the true conservatives) is just bull, it's about the here and the now. I like some of the libertarian beliefs, but on this one, no way.
That's another reason why so many people, including pro-Obama Black voters, supported Prop. 8. They wanted to remind the courts and legislators to respect the public's will or suffer the consequences.
Abortion is not an issue to compromise on just like slavery was not an issue to be compromised on! We can't just give up and say, Well, it's been like this for 34 years, so let's just quit fighting. I will fight till my dying breath to overturn Roe V Wade, just like many abolitionists fought against seemingly insurmountable odds. Slavery is immoral and that's why it needed to be abolished. Abortion is immoral and that's why it needs to be abolished.
I think it's more important to fight for the Hispanic vote than the gay vote. This post has it the other way around.
Seriously, we don't want your vote.
Only a man and a woman can be married. You see, that is what the word 'marriage' means. What's next for the 'gay' crowd? Perhaps we will have to legalize calling 40-year-olds 'teen-agers' so they can sodomize 9-years-olds at will? Or maybe call them 'horses' so they can have sex with animals?
No thanks, keep your 'win at any price' ideas, I'll keep my 'going to heaven a loser' ones.
(And…rationalize away abortion? Really? Whatever…)
[...] A rather tantalizing Republican Platform For The 21st Century Posted at May 2, 2009 A Republican Platform For The 21st Century [...]
I like the author voted for REagan in my first election, and served for 12 years in the military with honor. I recognize that everyone can't have had the privilege of voting for the Great Communicator, and don't denigrate anyone who comes to the table of conservatism afterwards. Neocon shmeocons, as a Jewish friend of mine is prone to say.
The question about abortion however is this: Right now Roe Vs. Wade is the law of the land. My personal take on it is, that we need to have a rational debate about when human life begins, and at what point does it become a child, and therefore abortion is violating his/her rights. That is the real crux of the debate. A woman's right to choose is a smoke screen to keep us away from the real debate: The woman's rights vs. the child's rights and at what point do they conflict.
For now, it's clear that late term abortion is a violation of the child's right. Any idiot can see that. That is where we need to focus our energies. By getting that concession from the feminists, we start the debate to work our way backwards to- if we as a society through rational debate that this is the case- conception. But it should be done through the debate.
The first thing we have to do though is neutralize the mainstream media. Talk radio and the internet has gone a long way toward that. Now we just have to continue the fight.
The problem that the Republicans have had is the same that the Democrats have had. They've wanted to make their personal religious/philosophical beliefs to become the law of the land. They have been as bad as the Democrats in wanting to use the power of government to enforce their personal beliefs. It is better to apply a litmus test to any law that asks: Does this law preserve life, liberty, or property? If it does not, then we should not make it part of our platform.
Danny
Your right Danny, I am personally against robbery, treason and fraud, but who am I to stick my beliefs down someone elses throat? and I am sick of abortion supporters trying to pin all of being pro-life on religion, and them "shoving" it down others throat, and what about the liberty of that "thing" being sucked out in the wonderful name of "choice", the same old arguements are getting pretty damn old. Just because something is the law of the land, doesn't mean that you should have to give up on it, I guess they should have given up after Plessy vs. Ferguson to.
Fair Tax sounds O.K. but I'd rather dump the income tax altogether starve Big Government.
Laws against robbery, treason and fraud, all fit the litmus test of preserving life, liberty, and property. YOu are not taking the time to read what I wrote and how I wrote it. I'm not talking about giving up on it either. Go back and read what I wrote. I'm talking about changing tactics and getting back to the REAL debate. You are giving me a knee-jerk reaction that does not address what I wrote.
As I've said, slv, I'm just throwing these Molotovs out there. I don't decide the fate of the Republican Party. As to Pineapple Express, wouldn't you rather have the DEA fund itself? Nothing else. Just pot. Just wondering. And I'm GLAD to hear all the opinions out here! Well, okay. Not all
No higher compliment could I ask for, David. Fisking's the WORST!
On most issues I would agree with you sir. However, I have a different take on the issue of gay marriage and the misnamed hate crimes bill recently pass. I have always viewed this less a matter of tolerance but more of forced acceptance of a behavior that most people find aborrant. If gays want the priviledges of marriage, they have access to them through contract law. But again this is not about tolerance. On the border, I find that I am rather draconian in nature. Each state has its own military force in the form of the NG. It is reasonable for a governor as CinC to task his troops to protect and preserve their borders. But of course we won't do that. However, NO NATION IN HISTORY has been able to preserve its national identity and its security without securing its borders.
We are either principled in our personal beliefs and political platforms or we sacrifice all that make this nation exceptional.
If the republican party platform embraced gay marriage, abortion on demand, and amnesty for all aliens who flaunt the law by illegally infiltrating our nation–I would have to find some other political group to join.
I have compromised and now accept "civil unions." I have compromised some on abortion too, over the years. But partial birth abortions are infanticide. And when I had a cancerous tumor removed I was given all sorts of information before the surgery. I believe women who are considering the removal of a potential being should be given information and options open to them, too. As for immigration, I believe people who are trying LEGALLY to become citizens should have less red tape and those who sneak in should not receive amnesty.
Well, if we want to get votes, why not sell our souls too. We can become just like the Democrats and maybe we can skim a few votes off of them and win a few. But there is just one problem with that idea. I have to give up the things that I believe. Sorry, If you want Republicans to become Democrats, why don't you just become a Democrat and be happy and prosper. Last time I checked, California voted against gay marriage so I'd hardly call that getting clobbered. As I type, there are many different groups that are plotting the destruction of Christianity and you want me to compromise to save our party and condemn my soul to win an election. Sorry, aint gonna happen.
The way I see it, the far right is not pulling to gain ground, they are trying not to lose ground. The far left is trying to gain ground by pulling everyone left and forcing their beliefs down everyone's throat. While they force their beliefs on everyone, they accuse the Religious right of what they are guilty of. Without the Religious right, we'd be yanked to the left so hard that if Stalin held his hand out, he'd slap our faces as we went by. We need the religious right to keep us in the center. If Ideology was a tug of war, you want to compromise 40% of the Republican side to get another McCain? He lost, he's exactly what you are talking about? Reagan was far right and won by a landslide! He was everything you are telling me to give up.
I say, GROW A SET and vote for what YOU believe. Because if you vote for what someone else believes, you will never get what YOU want anyway.
"I will fight till my dying breath to overturn Roe V Wade"
Why?
All overturning that decision does is return final decision to the states, which would lead to… what, exactly? Do you really expect more than two or three of them to actually BAN it? You'd get Kansas, Utah, MAYBE Alabama (no, you wouldn't even get Texas)… and even then only for a year or two tops depending on how long the economic toll caused by a mass-exodus of College educated career-aged women and young people in general takes to show; then it'll be legalized again.
(cont)
Mr. Simpson,
While you have some good point, you miss the point on two major issues: "gay right" and abortion. You also use a very fallacious argument with the Matthew Shepard Bill. Conservatives don't oppose that because it deals with homosexuals, they oppose it because it deals with "hate crime." Hate crime laws should be opposed at every turn and in every way possible because they punish motives rather than actions, and are one step on the road to criminalizing opinions.
You also leave off a big issue that if people were educated on it would literally turn this country around: the Constitution. As it stands, the Obama administration and current Congress are dangerously close to invalidating the United States as a Country under the principles and theories of government that our nation was founded on. There is strong support for the Constitution within the American population, and if you can get people educated on the issue (it's not that hard, the US Constitution is not hard to understand as it's written in plain, common, albeit slightly archaic, English, not legalese. If people started reading and understanding the Constitution, and we started aggressively pointing out how Obama was trampling on it, you would see a change in attitudes.
Just this lurker's opinion on the matter…
(cont)
…You are never, ever, EVER going to criminalize abortion in this country. If you truly believe that abortion is murder (I do not, but respect that you do) and you want to ACTUALLY save the would-be victims, you need to realize this and shift your focus from the courts to the streets: Give women "in the family way" information, counseling, and – most importantly – a REAL alternative. If you took all the BILLIONS being wasted on go-nowhere pro-life lawsuits and lobbying and pooled it; you could build a counseling-oriented adoption-centric REAL alternative to Planned Parenthood and you'd be able to ACTUALLY lower the abortion rate rather than just complaining about it.
As it stands right now, you (i.e. pro-life true believers) are getting played just like gun owners are. The anti-abortion lobby, just like the NRA, don't actually care or do very much about helping their "cause" – they're sole and sufficient function is to turn people who are passionate about an issue into an unquestioned bloc-vote for the GOP.
'Tis a fine platform. Lose the climate change business and be prepped to go whole-hog on the drug-legalization and you might even have a winning formula… just not for the Republican Party. The Republicans, at this point, are either over or well on their way to over. What you MIGHT have is the building-blocks of something that could REPLACE them.
Whatever you think of it, you can't "kill" political-conservatism, it's an IDEA. A party, on the other hand, dies when it either becomes irrelevant or attaches itself irremovably to something that becomes irrelevant. The 2nd option is what happened to the GOP. The Republicans let the relationship with Christian traditionalism (which is the main source of the trouble on the three BIG issues you bring up: Abortion, Gays and Drugs) become too entrenched, and now as the innevitable tide of time washes that long-outdated strain of spiritualism from modernity it's taking the GOP with it. But, like I said, you've a good idea of what to do with whatever comes next.
Here's the thing: The Hispanic vote is larger, but it has no ripple-effect (i.e. it doesn't bring any additional benefit outside itself.) It's also harder to get, because a BIG chunk of the Hispanic population is reflexively resistant to ANY caps on illegal immigration. It's a cultural thing.
The gay vote, on the other hand, is smaller BUT comes with great accessories. Namely, the fact that dropping the wholesale opposite to marriage and other equal-rights issues is a big "plus" in the eyes of one of the HUGE voting blocs who's abandonment of the GOP helped spell this last cycle: College-educated white upper-middle-class fiscally-conservative/socially-liberal young professionals. This is THE plum voting bloc to get, and social issues are the key: They're by-and-large pro-choice, pro-gay and so on BUT they are not automatically enamored of the Democrats, i.e. the party of their aging hippie parents. It's low-hangin' fruit, and there's a rainbow colored ladder that's sittin' right there waitin' for you to use it.
It's the way that they are trying to take a religious tradition and destroy it that I don't appreciate. I wouldn't mind if they used unions. Why not call it that? Sure it may be kind of silly to be offended because of the use of the same name but if you think about it, isn't that kind of like copyright infringement? If you want to make a new product, make your own and call it something else. Why is that so hard to do?
If you want to hear the best explanation that I've ever heard of why abortion is wrong, listen to Kathy Ireland explain it on Huckabee here: http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_...
[...] Read the original here: A Republican Platform For The 21st Century [...]
John, I would like to see the GOP get the backbone to present draconian enforcement of campaign laws and ethics violations of public officials. The current "Ethics Committee" system of controls appears to work as well as a congratulatory wink to acknowledge the offender had the ingenuity to break the laws in a creative way.
The rampant practice of politicians participating in legislation that affects entities that these same politicians took campaign contributions – before or after the fact, smacks of BRIBERY, and I'm not buying any nuanced baloney explanation or excuses. Maybe summary expulsion and permanent tagging as a 'Corrupt Politician' (like we do with sex offenders) would be a good start, with applicable jail time and restrictions on future employment venues as a reasonable follow up.
This approach may well clean out many of the GOP incumbents, but the continued presence of these criminal politicians gives a compelling reason to vote for other candidates.
The Democrats may have the White House, Senate, House of Representatives, and main stream media, but I believe one page newsletters send by snail mail is still a viable method of communicating with every voter in America.
Anastas, How do gays getting married make YOUR marriage and family any less sacrosanct? From a religious perspective, someone worshiping a false God does not make your God any less sacred, does it? My Dad was a Billy Sunday Baptist deacon, okay? I know religion! Marry 'em all, and let God sort 'em out, I say. If He wanted them getting a Fire and Brimstone shower, He would it done it to San Francisco long ago.
Last Word on the subject, then it's all yours, people. I do not need an "Everyone Lay Off John T. Simpson" response, as one commenter suggested. I put on my armor-plated asbestos suit with Ken Dryden's jersey number just for this occasion. Flame is no problem. Grenades, they're kinda iffy. But I will take the slings and arrows in NHL playoff-style goalie glory. Make all your points here.
What I find fascinating about this whole "Republicans are a thing of the past" argument is that it completely ignores history. You don't have to go back that far… 1976-1980 when the Democrats had even greater control of the federal government than they do now. Republicans were worse off and far fewer then than now. As the 1980s progressed the pendulum swung the other way and the Republicans became the dominant force and Democrats were scarce . Once again it has swung back favor to the Democrats. Anyone actually looking can see that politics is fairly cyclical.
Credit or blame whom you want. The pendulum will reach as far as it can in one direction and then move back the other way.
As far as the idea of compromising being "Reaganite", two illustrations come to mind: 1) Reagan was originally a Democrat and he said that he did not leave the Democrat party, it left him. He won back to back elections in landslides and the ground was set for the Republican "takeover" of congress in the 1990s; 2) The Reykjavik Summit, where after much talking Reagan refused to negotiate with the Russians on the Strategic Defense Initiative and walked out of the Summit. He started funding "SDI" anyway and, four presidents later, we still have it (although the name has changed a few times). Because of his refusal to give in we have a "commanding lead over all current or potential future adversaries in the realm of space technology/warfare." (quote from wikipedia).
What did Marriage mean 20 years ago? It meant a man and a woman were joined in the eyes of God in a Church. It also meant that thousands of years ago. In the State, it meant a man and a woman were married and they would get tax benefits because they were going to procreate and build a bigger tax base. After all, Government likes to invest in their product so that it can grow. To the state, we are nothing but an investment to help us raise more tax payers.
Now, I have no problem with people getting together and getting benefits from the state and being allowed to visit their loved ones in hospitals. I get that. But to allow a religious tradition like marriage to be used by someone who does an act that truly offends the majority in this country, I don't agree with that. Like I said, if I were to copy one of the lefties movies without permission, they would sue me. This tradition does not belong to gays. They have every right to get married, they just have to choose someone of the opposite sex. They made a choice of where they want to sit and now they don't like the smell, so they want to force others to be unhappy. I guess a lib isn't happy until everyone else is miserable. That's my opinion. As I said before, If you want to get married with your boyfriend, why not call it a union? Make your own tradition. Go lobby Congress to get a new tradition started with a new name and benefits. But I don't think that it will work because nobody likes to invest in a business that doesn't produce. But if you ask me to compromise because it's no big deal, than why is it a big deal for the gay community to choose a different name and a different tradition? Do they not realize how offensive it is? What happened to Political correctness now? I guess it only applies to Republicans.
Why should Republicans compromise everything as the left never do? We give and give and they take and take. Sorry, if that were a marriage, I'd be getting divorced. And that's why I will not compromise anymore. Let the left do that. It's fun to take things away from the right isn't it? Your plan is to compromise what we believe, make ourselves look so much like the dems that nobody can tell the difference? Is that a winning strategy? As I said on page 3, Reagan is everything that you are telling me to give up. Reagan was far right and won by a landslide. Why? because he was the exact opposite of Carter who was a spineless towel boy for the worlds thugs. Reagan had a solid spine, stood up to communism, confronted it on every front and brought it to it's knees. I bet you Jimmy Carters his knees are still calloused. The way I see it, we need to get back to Reagan principles. If you don't like it, sorry. But this is one person that is tired of all the years of attacks on religion.
John,
With regard to Gay Marriage was not George Bush's very position the support of Civil Unions. I do not have any issue with Civil Unions and if the Gays' want to call it a marriage fine by me but let's get one thing clear.
It is not a marriage because of the definition of marriage. Suppose that one of the partners of a gay marriage gets another person of the opposite sex pregnant or themselves get pregnant by someone else. Does the person outside the "Gay" marriage lose all parental rights? Does the "Gay" partner who is not a parent have more rights than the biological parent? What are the rights?
Gay marriage defined exactly as a same sex marriage leaves too many legal questions open. To call this a civil rights issue is not accurate. Even Prop 8 acknowledged civil unions. No one seems to want to answer the above questions. We cannot ignore the properties of gender because gays feel bad they don’t have normal lives. The gender differences alter the nature of these legal questions.
I told you why: Abortion is morally wrong and I will never give up trying to criminalize it just because it seems like a losing battle to many. Where would we be on the issue of slavery if everyone just capitulated to the status quo? Overturning Roe V Wade isn't the ONLY way I am fighting abortion, but it's the one you mentioned that we should give up on, and I reject that idea.
An article I read in Discover magazine stated there is a "gay" gene noted in animals. Those without the gene are always "heterosexual" while those with it are as likely to be heterosexual as homosexual. This implies what we term "Gay" is a product of both genetics and environment.
Why should any Civil Union bonding a gay couple be an impediment to a marriage between one of those individuals and someone they have impregnated? Otherwise in this unfortunate circumstance one has to divorce the "Gay" partner to marry the other person for the sake of Mommy and Daddy living together to raise the child. Let’s not forget that is the real reason for “marriage”, the propagation of the species. It is so a child knows who their biological mother and father are. These people being linked genetically are the best persons to raise that child. The child is the most like them at the genetic level.
The irony is if the left have their way “Homosexuality” may very well be eliminated from the gene pool over successive generations.
I agree with you, John. These are political realities. Regarding gays, it's the right thing to do. I personally think civil unions for all would have been the better way to go, but it seems too late for that now.
Gary Graham is the designated hitter for this.
The last chain of Layoff articles ended with him.
This tells me that he is the one person that hardliners will respect in this issue.
Grow a set, A? How big a set did it take me to expose myself to all the abuse I knew I was going to take here? BTW the Prop 8 vote was 52-48. And I believe that gays have no more right to interfere in the matters of Christians than Christians have to interfere in the lives of gays. Live and let live, okay? But thanks for the Stalin h/t. And I say that as a Solzhenitsyn reader
Reagan was the man he was because of what he believed. He never compromised his beliefs. And if you think the Right wing is going to compromise their beliefs, I hope you're not holding your breath. We'll just have to agree to disagree and I hope that you eventually realize that comprising in football is not a winning formula either. Every time you compromise a few yards, you're increasing the other teams chances of scoring another touchdown.
Allowing and embracing gay marriage ain't in the same league, waggy. I also promoted extensive reform of the LEGAL yet horribly corrupt abortion industry. I would also promote adoption by whatever means necessary to save innocent lives. Also, I opposed both the open border and illegal immigration, including amnesty. Read me now and I'll hear you later.
One of my husband's co-workers came up with an interesting twist on this. She and her partner decided to have a baby so they harvested the egg from one partner, inseminated it and implanted it in the other partner. I honestly don't know if that means that legally they are both entitled to rights to the child– though I assume they would be since the child is the genetic product of one and on record as being delivered by the other. They also split up recently. As far as I've heard the child custody has been handled amicably.
Your original question is an interesting one too. In a traditional marriage the father may be unaware for some time that a child is a product of adultery, but if a gay woman gets pregnant outside the relationship there's no mystery there. Theoretically the wronged partner could very likely be on the hook for the financial support of the child because they would be legally bound to their partner at the time of conception– though I'm no law expert. I'm guessing these are the kind of issues that would end up being hashed out after the fact and you know the gay community hasn't begun to consider the legal twists and turns they could end up dealing with if gay marriage is legalized. I could definitely see a scenario in which gay marriage becomes a be careful what you ask for kind of thing.
True, you did get lots of flak here but I meant grow a set as in don't compromise. ;o) Hey, I do respect your opinion so I apologize if I came off a little aggressive. There's a stalinist in everyone at 2 am Chicago time and I've had a bad year. LOL Especially with what's going on with this new administration.
The vote was 52-48 and it lost In California, the most liberal state in the union, it lost. There is no other state that is as liberal as California. I hardly call that getting clobbered. But my point is that you need the far right to keep it's beliefs in order to keep us in the center because the left is pulling that rope as hard as they can right now. So compromising isn't the best strategy right now.
Hey John,
You make some good points. Questioning the president's love of his country is not one of them! The Republican party IS going down the path to extinction. I am a Democrat, but I want a srong opposition party. Some advice to you guys. 1. Keep Michele Bachmann off of the airwaves. 2. Rush and Sean need to calm down. They keep attacking the president viciously every day, on a personal level. If they stick to policy, they have a little credibility, Not much, but they sometimes make sense. 3. Realize that Michael Steele is a bufoon. If Steele and John Cornyn are in charge of selecting next years Republican party candidates, you are doomed. Probably doomed anyway, but with these clowns at the head of the class, it makes the bloodbath that much worse. This is just a friendly piece of advice.
Done. I absolutely oppose "hate crimes" legislation for any reason. "Hate crime" is "thought crime," and that is a direct violation of the First Amendment and American tradition. As a practical matter, it makes no sense either. "Murdering a heterosexual is bad, but murdering a homosexual is really bad." Provable evidentiary animus toward a particular type of victim has always been one of the factors in determining the definition and degree of a crime ("I hate gays," or "I hate African-Americans" has long been available as a factor in a homicide to determine whether the homicide was murder or manslaughter, and to which degree. Creating a special class of victims to which hate crimes statutes apply also denies the equal protection of the laws (Fourteenth Amendment). It automatically means that some lives are more worthy of protection than others, or conversely that some lives are less worthy of protection than others. It offends my legal senses, and if they really believed in their radical egalitarian agenda, it would offend liberals too. But since they can't see the clear inconsistency in affirmative action, I can hardly expect them to see it here. Even with the Supreme Court as recently as Sandra Day O'Connor, the clear words of the Constitution have had to yield to the victim cause du jour rather than sticking to its proper role of deciding on the casus de jure. Abandoning the Constitution in order to advance a politically-correct cause is one of the greatest dangers to our republic today.
Wait till the Huffpo crowd and the Kos kids get a hold of this. It is a huge, detailed white flag.
Since when is knowing right from wrong antiquated and so last century? We lost the election. We have lost before. But we can not forget why we lost. McCain was the candidate, the party was set on fire by Palin and the media systematically destroyed her. The battle is for that middle 20%… the media won. It is not an excuse, it is just a fact.
Now you want to say, "Boy oh boy… we got spanked… hey, maybe it's because we're wrong". Puh-leeze.
On gay marriage: The Left controls our message. They put it all on "religion". They say we hate gay people, and no one stands up and says otherwise. Good Lord, is it really that difficult? A government can't legislate on feelings or fairness. That is a hard fact of life that the Left wants to skate around. For years – decades – the Left has sold their ideas as "for the children" and we sat by and let them. Now, in a real case of "for the children" we are still saying nothing. We all want equal rights, but they want more than that. They want the word, and all that comes with it. I fully support civil unions, but to say that I don't believe a man has any value in raising a child in a family with two women as parents, or that a woman has no value in a child's development being raised by two men is asking too much from me.
I don't hate, I want gay people to be happy. But they keep serving up their favorite question: how would gays being able to marry affect your marriage?. The answer is of course, not at all. But that is not the issue. It really is about the kids this time. I don't want my child being asked if, when they grow up, will they marry a boy or a girl. I want adoption agencies to stay open and not be closed down because legally they will be forced to adopt to gay parents if the definition of marriage is changed. I could go on and on about the reasons that have nothing to do with religion. The problem has been that there is no one standing up and giving rational reasons for our stance. I accept gay rights… I always have. I reject changing the definition of marriage, and that is a separate issue.
I am with you on foreign policy. oo-rah… Drug policy too, and of course the great Global Warming scam.
Abortion is a hard one. There is no doubt in my mind that it is killing a human. But, I do see your point. However, in the overwhelming majority of cases, we are dealing with very young, very confused and very scared women. I would like to see more mandatory education before the procedure is done. This "black and white" issue has some gray in it.
Look, 59,948,240 voters did not vote for the current President. Now, according to you we should all give in and change our beliefs? The political perfect storm was in play with a historic candidate in Barack Obama, a weak Republican candidate in McCain, and a media that embarrassed itself with disgraceful "coverage" and we still got 59,948,240? This is no time to give up or give in.
I appreciate the effort, but now it is time to sharpen our message and stay true to what is right and wrong.
PS: I don't care if the author thinks the reprehensible Matthew Shepherd bill is divisive. In fact, Matthew Shepherd was a self-destructive seriously depressed and tragic young man. His murderers were vicious homophobes who got what they deserved. Was his death any more a hate crime than the Tate-LaBianca/ Manson murders? Was it any more violent or horrifying? Was it any more senseless? Yet one becomes a "hate crime" while I guess the other is just a naughty crime. We can abhor what happened to Matthew Shepherd without a dangerous legal catharsis making him a martyr deserving special treatment. We have to make it clear that we would never wish a thing like that on anyone, but creating special victim status only makes the problem worse. And there is something to be said for not putting oneself in harm's way. It doesn't justify a vicious murder, but it goes a long way toward explaining it.
[...] News: U.S. Reporter Jailed in Iran in ‘Bad Condition’ John T. Simpson, Big Hollywood: A Republican Platform For The 21st Century Free Roxana Saberi: Free Roxana – Petition: Member of defense team denied access, even though [...]
Thank you!!! I have read this site since it's debut, but have never posted a reply before now. I'm doing so now to show my appreciation for your common sense(brilliant} stand on all of these issues. You should have written the article.
oooo, a self-dependent DEA, I like it! That seems like a very good idea because then their support would depend on the quality of their work. Could we make the Border Patrol like that too?
P.S. Molotovs ROCK! Keep 'em coming!
I thank you and Slveryder for your kind words. I must admit it is always easier to let someone like the author stick his neck out by stating his position without any knowledge of how it will be taken, and then to pick it apart or agree with it at my leisure. I admire his guts, and feel that where I disagree with him, it is a good faith difference among friends. Nevertheless, some things are not open to compromise, and though I have serious objections to gay marriage, I utterly despise abortion. I can find some room for compromise on the former, and practically no room for compromise on the latter.
Thanks. Your reply disappeared for a couple of hours, so I couldn't respond. Please see my thank you note to you and Mojave below.
What really bothers me here is 2 of the issues he is saying the party to change their stance on are not a super majority in the opposite direction – Abortion, and Gay Marriage, I don't know off hand how people feel about drugs in general or the drug war, to say that pushing the party to the left on social issues (and not to the "Right" as some Libertarians might claim), what option what conservatives (Or "Neocons") have? I understand some folks just want the culture war to be declared over, but many do not.
As an "evangelical"(in theory anyway), I won't tolerate the changing of the meaning of the word marriage. I would tolerate some new word to describe what would be essentially the same rights given to gays. Words mean things. Stop trying to redefine the language. Gay people don't ask me my opinion of their actions, so I won't give it. But stop being petulent and demanding that we change the language for your tender hearts. Those caveats aside, I'm not opposed to civil unions(just don't force churches to preside over them).
I think you're sort of right on abortion(we should never give up on overturning Wade and returning it to the states) in that we should focus our efforts on the immediately doable stuff.
As to the rest, I've no qualms(but don't tax weed too high or you'll still end up with a black market).
<3
Sounds like real conservative beliefs, if you through your principles under the bus. The idea that gays are here so approve of them, that some taking of innoceent human life is a good thing to do, since it's here, is not only intellectually vacant, but morally offensive to the core of what it means to be a human. Sluffing over what is right and wrong will get no converts and bombing Iran into submission is hypocrisy. If we accept the culture of death because,"it's here" by what right do we have to complain about Iran's version of culture of death through Jihad?
All politica;l decisions have a moral element to them, and for a society to exist in true harmony we need to pay attention to what our Creator calls upon us to do.
I might add that religion and God are here to stay also -get used to it.
David: I couldn't agree more. I like your plan, the only thing I would add is we need a new, compelling voice to articulate said plan. I think there are many bright up and comers in the Republican party but no break out voice just yet.
Great post. Basically what is presented in the column as 'saving the GOP" can be pretty much summed up by this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWHgUE9AD4s Besides, why not eg choose illegal immigration as the 'to dump' value? Or will the ACORN-hordes vote Dem anyway? Geez.
I do agree there should be more attention to Islamic brutality against women and gays, though, and personally I don't see anything inconsistent with not being a fan of gay 'marriage' and opposing brutality – that's an equation tactic the left uses.
Obama Bought The Presidency
John, I understand why you have the stance that you do. But for your suggestions to work, you'd first have to explain it on a different topic. How is it that Republicans are staunchly anti-Islamist and such a large majority of Jews vote Democrat? Conservative Christians are the best friends that American Jews have, yet they are treated worse than pond scum by them. Why?
I just don't see a Rodney King Republican Party ("can't we all just get along?") winning that many people. I am not a one issue voter. And I vote for people who have differing opinions from mine on many issues. But to me, the democrat-lite direction that W took the country did not endear him to either the public or the media. I was only offering my opinion, (see here is where I fight the urge to call you "Johnny.") I look at my own political evolution and see where I have compromised–but I don't see where it has gotten me anything, or made my party stronger.
kudos to you for delineanating what many citizens of this nation feel. while i can support most of what you propose, i question whether or not it will come to fruition if the gay issue is allowed to remain a "politcal" one. while homosexuality has forever been with us it is being now used as a cudgel to intimidate some who disagree by defining dissent as hate or bigotry, and would prevent the seemless cloth you seek. liberty is defined as freedom from tyranny and the right to self-determination. if we could solve this dilemma, a more perfect union would be ours.
At present, the federal government is accumulating massive central power at a breakneck pace that is shocking. The voters in this country heard what the candidates had to say in the last run up to the election and they chose (by a small majority) to install a Marxist who believes that the American people are good "because" of government and recognizing that the "collective" is much better than "individual rights". The American people no longer have a say about what direction our country is headed in rather it's the "elected" representatives that become more interested in collecting power for personal and political gain.
When the government decides to seize private companies (GM, Chrysler, AIG, Citi) all in the name of "saving" these companies from going under, then they've essentially become a tyranny and throw free market principles out the window. Businesses should be allowed to fail. However, this does not serve the purpose of the government we have in power today. This is all about accumulating power and the taxpayer is now on the hook to pick up the tab in the form of higher taxes.
Bold op-ed, John. Thank you for posting it. I agree with just about everything in it. Still too early and not enough coffee yet to comment point by point so, I'll suck down some more and come back later. Maybe. If I don't start consuming mass quabtities by noon.
Leave the gay marriage and second-trimester abortion decisons up to the voters (not judges) on a state-by-state basis. Otherwise, I agree with the main points of this article, although there is a whiff of opportunism about some of it.
I cannot be persuaded that a first-trimester embryo is yet a full human being with complete individual rights; therefore, for me first-trimester abortions are a woman's choice as an individual, and the state has no more right to tell her what to do with her body than it does to restrict my rights to free speech, bear arms, or own property.
Third trimester abortions sound way too much like infanticide to me; keep them illegal, save possibly in extraordinary circumstances (pregancies resulting from incest/child abuse, for instance). A mother deciding seven months in to a pregnancy that she doesn't want the child because it will hurt her career or her figure does not pass the extraordinary circumstances test.
No one has convinced me that marriage is a human right equal to the right to free speech or the right to bear arms, so I don't see gay marriage as a human rights issue. Nor do I see legalizing gay marriage as the end of civilization. Therefore, leave gay marriage up to voters in each state. For that matter, if Utah wants to legalize Mormon marriages to up to four wives, let them.
Legalize marijuana and tax the heck out of it? Sounds good to me. Use that tax revenue for drug education, treatment, and interdiction of dangerous hard drugs like heroin and crystal meth.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. What sentence comes with this legislation? When James Byrd Jr. was murdered in Texas by 3 racist thugs in 1999, all three were tried and found guilty of first degree murder. Then candidate G. W. Bush was brought to task during one of the Presidential debates for not signing a "hate crime" bill specifically for the Byrd murderers while he was Gov. of Texas. His answer was -" Well, 2 were sentenced to death and 1 was given life without parole. What more did you want?" [not an exact quote, but you get the jist]. Being that Texas is one of the few states that actually does still execute, what more do these people want? In the same time, they don't want executions, so what is the point?
I can't tell you the number of friends that I have who say that they cannot vote republican because they do not agree with the GOP stance on "social" issues like abortion and gay rights. I don't either, but just don't think they are very important issues relative to freedom and small government when casting my vote. I think that if the GOP follows your advice and focuses more on the roll that government should play in people's lives, instead of focusing on hot-button social issues that a lot of young people would eagerly join the ranks.
The real reason irgender marriage is such a big issue is becauses it's anti-christian. The plan is to begin using anti-discrimination laws to shut down public christianity. See the following:
<a href="http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/ar…” target=”_blank”>http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/ar…
<a href="http://www.gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=2…” target=”_blank”><a href="http://www.gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=2…” target=”_blank”>http://www.gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=2…
This is why, as Americans, we need to oppose the attempt to stiffle religious freedom masked as a "gay civil right's" campaign. Notice, the MSM completely shuts this out of the discussion. Every time, irgender marriage is discussed, Conservatives must drive home the protection of religious freedom.
A perfect example of why we need to oppose the statists liberals on these issues…
We seem to still be stuck on "liberal light", the policies that left us behind these last few cycles. I am not in favor of repeating the same mistakes again, if you don't mind. If you can have hard statist as opposed to fizzy libby, most go to hard. SO:
Why not try this? The GOP brakes ALL SPENDING. If it earmarks, it dies, for everyone alike, Dem and Rep. The party that treats the US budget (?), like their constituents treat theirs, wins. If it can't be afforded, it goes away. That may last two years, but it would show some gains. If someone wants to return TARP, we make a big show on the news, handshakes and photo-ops, signed pictures and national adulation for a business that goes at freedom and the American Way.
EVERYONE gets a third of their taxes back. And as revenues improve, you get even more back. Up to half. Business gets an immediate reduction of 10% on corporate tax, and yearly bonuses of further reductions based on the economy and employment. Then make tax cuts permanent. Also, a big show of buying back the Social Security IOU's, and return real solvency to that program. Then start the semi "opt out" up to half of your "contributions" into other savings vehicles.
The social things are left to the states. Period. If California wants to murder the unborn and go Sodomite, let them. My bet is everyone else moves out over taxes and social behaviors, including crime and illegal immigration, and California modifies when they have no one to exploit through taxes anymore. Texas makes out like a bandit in this, and they should.
When the statists start yelling, point them to Taxachusets, Kalifornia, Vermount each other, not us, and New Yank you're wallet. You don't like how your state does things, move down the road. This makes states compete for business and employees, as they should. That'll modify their uppity wage slave mentalities and social engineering behaviors.
WE have a real opportunity to stop this silliness by cutting the root out, the free flow of someone else's money to stupidity. Let those that want the goodies pay for them out of their pockets.
Irgender marriage was legal in California for two months. Cali, contains San Francisxco and LA, so I think it's safe to assume that it has a higher percentage of gays than most US States.
In those two months, there were 38,000 irgender marriages. One half of those marriages were to people who came from out of state. So, among the 38,000,000 people in California 19,000 marriages occurred (38.,000 people). The demand for irgender marriage in California was one tenth of one percent.
Pretty freaking amazing that the MSM has ginned this up into a major issue.
The animosity on the right towards immigrants is doing WAY more damage to the Republican brand than opposition to gay marriage. Studies show immigrants, including the illegal kind, have a positive effect on the economy. The reason there are so many illegal immigrants is because there is a disconnect between the market for labor and the current immigration rules. Essentially, you have a black market for labor. If you believe in freedom, especially if you lean libertarian, you should support freer movement of labor and less government restriction. A guestworker program would separate the economy of labor from issues of citizenship, etc. Opposing immigration puts you in line with the labor unions. Let the market work.
Hispanics are a large and growing voting bloc that has many reasons to support the GOP. The anti-immigrant position of many right wingers is anti-freedom and serves to piss off the Hispanics at the same time. This needs to change.
So that means you can not support a platform as described above? I have never understood the attitude of the religious right that holds principals so rigid that if not supported by a political party they will allow the other party to violate every single principal they have. Makes no sense to me.
Those are not principals and core values. Those are excuses for destroying America.
This is brilliant! A +1 to you!
And it grows even brighter!
My recommendation: get on every conservative site you can, and hammer these ideas over and over again.
They're on my talking point list from now on.
Thanks.
Another +1!
You are absolutely wrong on the border issue. For the first half of America's history, there were NO restrictions on immigration at all. The very first American restrictions on immigration were the Naturalization Act of 1870 and the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, both designed to restrict Chinese immigration but not other ethnic groups. This was followed by the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 designed to limit southern and eastern European immigrants, and we go from there. Study some history before you make blanket statements like that.
Whoa, A! I don't want anyone suppressing religion, as happens in China, any more than I want anyone suppressing gays, as in most of the Islamic world. I detest extremism no matter what its origin. Be you religious fanatic or atheistic Communist, the end result is always mountains of dead bodies. As a veteran myself, and the son of a hard Baptist and Normandy Beach veteran, I say rights for all. Can't be bad.
As do most of us with any particular issue. That's why I stuck to economic and fiscal policy in my post, and left the more social things up to the states. I'm into the Jeffersonian model in this.
A Point of Parliamentary Procedure, ArtBoy. I am TOTALLY for a STRONG national defense! Peace Through Superior Firepower, okay? Death From Above? I'm down with that IF necessary, as it was with Reagan bombing Libya. We should be squeezing Iran and Kim for OUR citizens! But I would MUCH rather have conservative-minded gays supporting that policy, than staying with the lemming-like LibDems because we don't have a damn good thing to say about 'em!
Outstanding rebuttal.
I'm not questioning HIS love of country, Donna! I'm questioning his judgment. And far too many Lefties like KOS have been saying some VERY bad things about America the past eight years! Can't deny that! Makes me wonder, okay? And Rush and Sean can't COMPARE to Air America's abuse of President Bush! On the rest, you have the Dem position. This is a Republican discussion. Objections noted. Overruled.
Absolutely.
Be fiscally and govenmentally conservative. Stop the out of control spending. That one issue will get all those folks everyone wants to demographic out and pander to. We are NOT statist libs. Put more money into people's hands to support whatever they want to, and we win. That is the key to everyone's anger with DC. The free flow of money from those who do not support issues to those very issues they dislike.
If someone wants their own version of "X", they should pursue it state by state. The Constitution is the concern of the Federal government. Everything else, within reason, is a state issue.
You basically used a lot of words to say "Surrender."
Many of the issues you discuss only have commerce because they are inordinately trumpeted in the media, like gay marriage. I don't know anyone who doesn't shrug about homosexuality – it just doesn't bother them. What does bother them is the in-your-face nature of gays who, went losing on Prop. 8 in California, found out who supported it financially in Hollywood and other places and went after their jobs. That's only one example of the aggressive fascism of the left fueled by the media.
The only real way to change America for the better is way the left corrupted it – via the media, where the passions are played like a drum daily. What the left doesn't get, and won't get until it's too late for them, is that they're going to lose the media battle because people are now empowered and acting locally using things like Facebook. The left is creatively bankrupt, while the right is still fuled by the fire of liberty, and that essence in the heart of man will not be extinguished. Why should I adopt bankrupt ideas when I can fuel that fire?
You must be on the left, you do not get to decide what my values and principles are, I DO! I describe myself as an atheist, the religious right has nothing to do with crimes against nature.
John, I like your column.
But it is about time to separate what the Federal government should concern itself with, and what the states concern themselves with. California has all kinds of things I disagree with. I don't live there, consequently. My state has open carry. Those that disagree with that don't have to live here.
It is about time the states have the right to self-determination in all this, rather than a Federal hammer dictating it. The Republicans can sweep the Dems out simply by being fiscally responsible, and forcing the issues like this to the states, where those who live there determine their direction.
My statement had NOTHING TO DO WITH IMMIGRATION. As far as studing history, I hold a Masters in history. My statement had everything to do with the nature of our refusal to control our borders. Every nation throughout history took measures to secure itself from China building the Great Wall to our southern neighbors militarizing their southern borders. Now we are not the size of China or any of the other nations but we can effectively control our borders. As far as immigration is concerned, I don't have a problem with restrictions on LEGAL immigration. Frankly, LEGAL immigration is good for the general wellbeing of the nation. However, the corrosive impact of illegal immigration on society is obvious. With all due snarkiness, study some reading COMPREHENSION before commenting.
The libertatrian in me agrees with what you say with two exceptions; abortion and homosexuality. Looking beyond the senselessness of aborting of embryos for expediency's sake, we now wish to harvest the remains to find ostensible cures for diseases, which in reality, amounts to nothing more than eating our young. If the costs of abortion were borne by those who wished them, there would be fewer. And while homosexuality exists, it should not trump the rule of law when it comes to the equal protection clause of our constitution. In the land that touts freedom and liberty for all, I choose not to be forced, intimidated or coerced into accepting more than that which I already know to be true.
MovieBob, with all due respect, this is bilge pumpings…
The Federal government is not the solution of these problems, IT IS THE PROBLEM, (to paraphrase the Great Communicator). The debate to seek Federal redress from any of these issues is part and parcel of why we fail over and over again on them. THESE are STATE DEBATES! The Federal Government should be mute on all of this.
If California, Nevada, etc. want to be abortion providers, let them. If West and East Coast want to be gay friendly, LET THEM! If spot states here and there think taxation on pot saves them fiscally, THEN LET THEM!! If "blue states" want to do "cradle to grave" social programs, WE SHOULD LET THEM!!!
But if no one wants to live anywhere these things are and pay for them, we must let them, too.
Thanks, but no thanks. If he wanted it easy, Hopey should have run for dogcatcher in Illinois.
Wait a moment. In your grandiose view of How The World Works, this one issue would cause an exodus that'd hurt a state's economy? College-educated career-aged women would most likely be in jobs that greatly support pregnant women. Are you doing that backhanded liberal stigma thing like they do with race, not outright stating that pregnancy is such an embarrassment and hindrance that legal measures are required? And why mention young people? Your side has gone to great lengths to accommodate single mothers with government assistance, there is a vast network of community-based support for young parents, it's hard to imagine a better time in the history of this nation to have a kid.
Banning abortion in a state (with the usual exceptions) would have two major effects. One, for those determined to abort, you'd see more abortion tourism, they'd go to another state like we see with the underage notification laws. Two, it'd make people wake up and realize abortion is not contraception, the increase in condom use would cut the STD infection rate and yield heath care savings.
But an economy-crushing mass exodus because of this one issue? Puh-lease! Americans overwhelmingly choose to stay where they are and fight a perceived injustice. Blacks did not abandon the South to escape Jim Crow, they stood their ground, and some died for it. Last I checked the history books, there was no mass abandonment of the Thirteen Colonies to escape British oppression. If you think Americans won't choose to stay in their homes and fight, you don't know what it is to be an American.
The United Kingdom has a legal equivalent for "marriage", and no, it doesn't use that word. But you don't see the UK being beaten like a rug over it. If "civil partnership" is good enough for John Barrowman and Scot Gill, why are we getting the crap beaten out of us over this?
Because the Gay lobby wants the issue against Christians. Its not about rights, its about politics.
Thank You Don L. Clear, concise, and to the point. A +1 for you.
I see I have to make one point absolutely clear here. I am not advocating that all churches be compelled to perform gay marriages. That is a violation of religion. I am talking a purely legal JOP contract that gives full rights. And Vegas isn't exactly the Vatican. But Church congregations and leadership ALONE should decide the issue, not Leftie courts. Again, what should it be? Federal, like DOMA? or State, like ballot referendums? You decide!
We fail to realize the benefit to both Mexico and the United States of Work Visas to allow our citizens to cross each other's border for work. To state the argument that we can simply fence them in fails to see the realities in our county. The ability of unscrupulous employers to hire illegals at wages below minimum wage is damaging.
Work Visas would force employers to pay the same as they would an American. Any Mexican paid under the table would have the same rights as anyone else to sue and seek redress of said employer. The work visa would force the Mexican to pay taxes. The problem is that the left is allowing them here and then giving them welfare which is unproductive for Mexico (their citizens don’t produce value in their country and a cost for us). The left’s plans are a drain and unethical. The problem is that the only answer I hear from the right is build a fence. It’s not border security that is the problem, it is the enforcement of hiring laws and the “giveaway” of government services. Their pay is undercuts our workers, it is not taxed and we lose revenue and the Left gives them social services anyways.
See, MR, this is exactly what I'm talking about! Republicans have to hammer these modern-day issues out. As to opportunism, that is a Democrat tactic. My opportunism is the same as Reagan's. Example. Reagan went WAY out on a limb to oppose the Briggs Initiative, which would have banned gay schoolteachers from teaching. Alienated the entire right wing in CA. That was in 1978. Bet that earned him a lot of gay votes in 1980. His rep is unfair.
Yet another "Let's Become Diet Democrats" spiel. Zzzzzz.
Abortion will cease to be an issue in the future because technology will obscelesce it as a medical procedure. My cousin in the early 1990's had a baby four and 1/2 months premature. The baby weighed 12 ounces at birth could use a dollar bill as a bed cover and is a healthy girl today.
The doctors had incubation chambers with high percentages of O2 and electrodes atached to the child with a computer monitering vital signs and adjusting the environment. Given our progress in cloning (I speak of cloning indiviudual cells such as heart tissue and blood not whole people) we will be able to replicate a mother's womb and eventually exceed the mother though computer's monitoring every level of development.
At that time Roe v Wade becomes irrelavant because it depends on a live birth that may technically never occur. The "my body" argument becomes irrelavant as well. The Pro Choice argument will eventually fail because in the end it is completely illogical.
I remember him saying that. What more, indeed?
Your ignorance about the NRA is appalling. Either that or you're doing a deliberate liberal smear to sow distrust. Political affiliation matters little. In their publications that come with membership, they publish election guides tailored to the member's local elections. Of foremost importance in their selections is gun rights, period. Secondary, the candidates chances of election, they'll recommend one with a slightly inferior gun rights stance if they're far more likely to win, but they need a rather high ranking regardless, and they'll stick to the two main parties unless local politics says otherwise.
However they have supported Democrats over Republicans in the past, will likely will do so again. To say the NRA doesn't care so much for gun rights as it does for garnering Republican votes, is either a blatant lie, or massive ignorance you have neglected to correct with simple research. Whether you're a liar or too lazy to get your facts straight, matters little, that you could even make such an outrageous claim says enough about the quality of your opinion.
John, I have to agree with almost all of what you said. We need to teach our children the love of our Great Country, Patriotism, and that inspite of all of the good that we do, as with any human-created entity, we have made and will make mistakes. Ours should not be a government that tramples on the freedoms of others, at home or abroad. Our Government needs to be as small and self-supporting as possible within the edicts layed out by the constitution, and with more power granted back to the states. This country is founded on religious freedom, which means that no one can dictate religion how a Christian (or insert any religious ideology here) should practice or, likewise, how an atheist should believe. It is God's place to judge what happens in the afterlife, not people. It is not the Government's place to dictate what happens in the bedroom between two consenting adults, that is NOT the job of goverment and a waste of Taxes to even debate the issue. Civil unions for "governmental" purposes are a good place to start, leave marriage with the church.
cont. Hate crimes should NOT be any more punisheable than regular crimes. The physical harm afflicted the same between someone who was beaten over a purse as for the belief that they should be with someone of the same sex. Bodily damage is still bodily damage. All crimes have a basis in hate…hate for self, hate for society, hate for women, hate for religion, I could go on, but I am sure that you get the point.
cont.
Abortion is an incredibly sensitive political subject. It SHOULD be rare. It SHOULD be available to victims of sex crimes, and it SHOULD be done to save the mother's life. It is unfortunate that women's rights groups do not stand up for the thousands of their sisters that are lost every year due to irresponsible behavior because a woman can't keep her legs closed without using some form of birth control (and yes, as a woman, I said WOMAN because the potential and choice to conceive and carry a child is solely in our hands, men have no rights in this matter). It is ironic that the Liberals who are so offended at the thought of waterboarding terrorists to save American lives, think nothing of the the reprehensible act of partial-birth abortion and the suffering it causes of such a tiny life that is very capable of feeling, or the emotional damage to women wrought by the act of an abortion. Regardless, it should stay legal and safe, and regulated by the states.
cont. Legal immigration is awesome. Illegal immigration has to stop. We need to enforce our own laws and borders. The stress on our public services is contributing to the bankruptcy of states across the Union. Maintenance of English as the national language is of paramount importance to enable integration into OUR country . It is the one thing that is cohesive about our culture and keeps us unified as a nation.
Legalizing pot may bring in some money and certainly free up a lot of court and law enforcement time, but like alcohol, it has long-term damaging health effects that should not be ignore. Unlike alcohol, a person can get high being in the same room as pot smoke so the spaces where it is allowed should be closely regulated. I doubt that the goverment would be able to collect a whole lot of tax revenue from it, but it would free up tax dollars used in the law enforcement and court sectors.
cont.. The policy of fiscal conservatism and small government does not belong solely to the religious right and the most of the points that you make explain that. There is a large segment of the population that is socially moderate (live and let live WITH consent) that is turned off by the religious zealotry that seems to come through some of the hard right. The republican party needs to clarify what it stands for and crystalize its message to something that is simple and easy to understand. We are still looking for that kind of a leader.
Her's one more. They gay couple are raising the child and the "biological" gay parent dies. The other "Gay" individual now has the physical possession of the child and does not get along at all with the opposite sex biological parent.
Without defining these things ahead of time we tread on extremely dangerous grounds. Then the "private" bedroom issue becomes society's (the courts) problem. Civil Union wold not caue this issue. by defining a same sex bonding as different from a marraige we can create laws and customs that treat the two types of pairings as different from a legal perspecitive. I had a friend who was the child of a "gay" parent which makes me consider these isseus when I think of this.
I cannot even begin to form an opinion on what is even clearly "right".
I'm sorry but I do not agree with the premise, as Rush says. The main problem with Republicans over the eyars (I am one, relax) is that Pres. Bush took the tactic of NOT CONFRONTING and LOUDLY OPPOSING the left-wing screaming, attacks, etc. We need to ELOQUENTLY and LOUDLY oppose EACH AND EVERY ATTACK. It is simple communication and marketing and it is why the Dems have been winning… they have a relentless organization setup to do just that and we have been asleep. Sorry, I love Rush and Hannity and Beck but they are listened to by 10-15% of the country, at most. We have to get the message out much more forcefully to ALL other media. Maybe some of our wealthier members could pool resources and buy a few MSM dinosaurs and turn them around (NY TImes, NBC, etc…) as most of our outlets are doing well but not national network numbers… look at the Wall Street Journal as an example. Read next comment for more!
Some positions could stand to be shifted.. how about a more eloquent defense of Civil Unions over marriage (Why hasn;t "marriage is a RELGIOUS SACRAMENT and the state has no business defining religious matters" been used??? The way it should be is the state sanctions all "civil unions" so that state can define that (Man/woman, gay, whatever-which dumps the problem off on STATE LEGISLATORS and NOT religious people!) and "marriage" is a RELIGIOUS CEREMONY that is recognized by the state. When people get their "marriage license" it is actually a "civil union" and the marriage part comes from their religious background. All previous marriages would automatically be recognized as civil unions and then if the state wishes to recognize gays for civil unions, fine… they have no rights that extand beyond that but also are not denied any rights, they cannot complain about not being recognized as "normal" with a marriage as they HAVE NO RIGHT TO ONE (since they would also have no right to demand a baptism, etc.) and the issue is neutered completely. Read next for more!
As far as abortion goes, make more eloquent arguments!!! I just had the argument with my very agnostic/scientific leaning on everything brother who tried to expalin that a days-old fetus is just tissue, etc. and I used the dna and other issues and it came down to this: FACTUAL STATING of the progression of life-with acknowledgement that a fetus will not be any other thing than a human-is vital but it will come down to changing the minds and hearts of the public overall before this can be won. It will nto be won by using extremem vitriol, etc. I agree WITH the vitriol, but is does NOTHING for the argument. Read for more!
Really, the Republican agenda has to be completely RE-BRANDED and MARKETED using EVERY TECHNIQUE to get it thru to the public. Most people agree with a large majority of it, they JUST DON'T KNOW IT. Stop complaining about the MSM and DO SOMETHING TO GET AROUND IT! I hate to say it but look at what the Dems have been doing.. they've been very effective in getting all the "in-betweeners" expecially on campuses and the under 30 crowd. We need to look at it and COMMUNICATE (and to be crass, SELL IT) our message and agenda to everyone. Read for more!
It will take getting people to join the PTA and school boards (to keep an eye on textbooks, classes and teachers), to work as teachers, administrators and others in the school and local governments, busniess people to join Rotary, Chambers of Commerce and more in order to influence at a grass roots level (and als blunt the left, who have been actively doing this for years). We need people to ARTICULATELY EXPRESS the basics of our beliefs. I am amazed at the ridiculous ideas many in the left have towards the Right! Let's COMMUNICATE and also CHANGE THE PERCEPTIONS by ALWAYS TAKING ON ANY ANTI-RIGHT reporting, commentary, advertising, statements, etc… EVERYTHING. and LOUDLY!!! We have to hit them hard with it EVERY TIME a statement is made (Jon Stewart says something? CALL, EMAIL, GET ON LOCAL TV AND COMPLAIN, WRITE THE LEFT'S OWN NEWSPAPERS, ETC>>!!!) Do NOT take ANYTHING lying down. Read for more!
Do it LOUDLY but show that we have the class that is missing with virtually every leftie rant you see or hear. REITERATE PRINCIPLES, EDUCATE every single time CAUSE WE NEED TO. It's how this works. How do you all think the Left has been able to paint the picture of the Right as they do? It's been a process and unfortunately, even though I like him a lot, Pres. Bush let this happen. In 8 years, we took 30 years BACKWARDS and now we need to shift it, even just to the REAL CENTER! Remember, the left is going FAR-LEFT… we're the actual Center on most issues and a few on the Right (according to every poll the public agrees, they just don;t see themselves as "evil Republicans".. we need to change our branding!). We ALL need to do something about it, not just ask Rush what to do, he is doing his bit. We all need to get off our keysters and ACT.
Your logic is specious. If no one in CA had a problem with gays until they got angry about Prop. 8, then where did Prop. 8 which has no practical reason to exist other than as an "eff you, pal!" to homosexuals COME FROM in the first place?
This is the type rigid belief system that will doom the GOP. Religion in politics makes for bad politics and politics in religion is bad for religion. For several decades the GOP and religious right made a good team but now they are in the process of distroying each other. Our fore fathers had the wisdom to seperate church and state. Maybe we are relearning that lesson.
Your logic is based in a model of American behavior – the concept of strong, long-standing familial/cultural ties to geographic region – that is rapidly becoming extinct particularly in the age demographic I'm talking about. The concept of moving all over the country for work is no longer the exception, it's an expected fact of life for both my generation (I'm 28) and even moreso for the one behind mine.
(cont)
(cont)
If/when states become able to ban or severly restrict abortion, you will see immediate and profound demographic changes that directly corelate to said restriction: Tech, biotech, medicine, communications and all other fields that LIVE on young talent will not want to put down facilities in these areas, because recent and future college graduates will not wish to be there for any length of time. Young male professionals do not want to be in a place where they will have difficulty getting out of accidental fatherhood, young women will feel as strongly or stronger this way. The under-40s will not move back home from college, they will move far away. The popular culture will come to regard these places in the manner of time-displaced Amish villages – cut off from the modern world. These communities will have, essentially, time-locked themselves into the past and will age into irrelevency.
Bush's "moderation" failed because it was placed in the wrong priorities – he was waffly on borders and spending, which even most "liberals" want curbed but steadfast on abortion and gay rights i.e. the religious issues.
CUT Christian fundamentalism from Conservatism the way that cultural evolution has cut it from, well… everything else, really… and Conservatism will thrive. It is not tradition, it is stagnation.
I can agree up to a point, but unless you're an anarchist one MUST concede some role for the federal government; and I hold that some states holding that abortion is a medical procedure and others holding it as MURDER is an invitation to chaos and inter-state conflict that the Union may not be able to sustain.
Many of us think these issues you talk about ARE your wildest excesses.
LGBT – many of us don't have as much of a problem with it as you assume. The problem is when it becomes an issue excessive rights – such as suing a church because they refuse to allow a gay marriage on their premesis or suing a photographer who refused to accept a contract for a gay marriage. When it crosses the line of the establishment clause, we have a legitimate concern for this going any further until that's addressed. That it's being taken up by the states individually (and by the legislature in at least one state) is exactly where it should be decided.
Abortion – While most of us have strong feeling about it, tending towards an ultimate ban – for reasons you can't merely dismiss. It IS the taking of an innocent human life, after all. But I digress. As a matter of governance and the Republican party, I feel it should have been a decision by the states, not the Supreme Court.
Immigration – you misunderstand our general position on this. We have no problem with immigration properly done. We have a problem with ILLEGAL immigration. Not only does it further encumber our already stressed public assistance infrastructure, it illuminates a glaring hole in our security. If those who merely want a better life here can get in without too much trouble, what about those who wish to do us serious harm? Also, the economic impact – since "illegals" are already willing to work for less than minimum wage, what pressure does that extend to the rest of us and what impact has it had on the "stagnant wages of the middle class" these past years? As a practical matter, we can't get rid of all of them, they have roots here we've allowed through our negligence. But we should NOT allow illegal immigrants benefits they haven't earned, like driver's licenses or in-state college tuition. I mean, back in 2000, my wife wasn't allowed in-state tuition for the first year we lived in Virginia, but an illegal alien was? Does THAT make any sense to you? To digress a bit, motor voter has gutted any serious effort to ensure those voting are actually eligible – 9 of 19 9/11 hijackers were registered TO VOTE. That particular hobbyhorse of mine has to be fixed, and it's related to the driver's license issue.
Navy 'll grow thick skin for ya. especially if you're an ET – they're nuts you know.
FCCS(SW/AW) Jeff Weimer
Ex-DS type (served in Japan too – USS Fife DD-991)
And the planned-parenthood types haven't done that already for the Democrats?
If it were that simple, I might agree with you. But as someone who practiced law in California for many years, I can tell you that my opposition has next to nothing to with my traditional religious belief concerning gay "marriage." My opposition is based on the left's opposition to freedom of religion, and its use of gay marriage as a way to damage that freedom further. As it stands now, post Prop 8, any pastor or priest or rabbi is free to perform a gay marriage without any interference from the state. Some of the earliest of these ceremonies did occur right here in San Francisco. The important issue is religion, not law. There is no genuine legal distinction between traditional marriage and domestic partnerships. The respective "joining" niceties are performed, and the marriage or domestic partnership is registered with the state authorities. And as you said, "Let God sort 'em out." So what's the problem?
So long as the legal distinction between the two unions is only the word "marriage," everyone is free to form the one type of union or the other. Take away the simple distinction, and a whole new and insidious set of rules goes into effect. Currently, religious ceremonies are solely the business of the religious institutions. They can choose to perform them, or if doctrine forbids it, they can choose not to perform them. Once marriage itself, rather than the legal trappings of marriage, becomes a guaranteed right, then any refusal by a cleric to perform a gay marriage would be a direct violation of state law. The state then becomes directly involved in purely religious matters.
Gays wishing to be granted by the state a right which has previously been strictly a religious matter are generally not particularly concerned about the so-called "right" (which can't be taken away in California, since it has never been a right in the first place except for the short hiccup of the state Supreme Court). They have been free for years to form a domestic partnership as well as have any accompanying religious ceremony they choose and which any church which chooses to do so, can perform. Only recently, with the vigorous assistance of the activist anti-church left, has a demand been made that religious and civil ceremonies become one and the same thing.
Once again, this is not about discrimination. It is not about "taking rights away." It is not about denying gays equal legal rights. It is about creating special rights. No heterosexual couple currently has the right to demand that a cleric perform a church wedding for them. The church is the sole judge of whether it should perform such a marriage or not. Pass "anti-discrimination" gay marriage legislation, and the demand made by the heterosexual couple remains a church matter, but the demand of a homosexual couple to be married in the church, if denied, requires the state to enforce the law against a religious institution for discrimination.
I have no personal problem with gays having religious weddings, and under my First Amendment rights, I can choose to recognize it or not based solely on my religious beliefs. But I don't want my pastor to be required to perform a gay wedding in my church in violation of church doctrine to satisfy the need of the left to control, then ultimately destroy, religious freedom.
I will add something else too, Donna. I don't like Obama's hate-filled preacher of 22 years much. Or his pal Bill Ayers, either. They ARE anti-American! Come on. Injecting black babies with AIDS? US of KKK-A? Setting off bombs in the Capitol? That's as anti-American as it gets! Tell me where I'm wrong.
I'm not sure you even understand the meaning of the word specious, much less Prop. 8. Are you saying it's deceptively attractive? Has a false look of truth?
You probably used it to try to make yourself look smart, a typical liberal move, when you meant to say "You're a liar!" as your reactive subconscious dictated (since it's generally in control on your part).
Prop. 8 was a ballot measure. It won by a nice majority. The people of California spoke. The reacting rabble, who will go to any measure of personal destruction to get their way no matter what, then set about trying to destroy people, as you are so pitifully attempting at the moment.
Skip, Moi, a Liberal? I think we can agree to be disagreeable. I'm just throwing all this cud out there for YOU guys to chew on. Abortion is the law of the land, and I don't see that changing with Obama SCOTUS appointments. But the American abortion industry is Nazi-like in many ways. Dr. King's niece is saying that! We HAVE to attack what's happening now, instead of just wishing for a ban that ain't gonna happen! And look up Reagan on the Briggs Initiative.
I agree with almost everything said. Where I differ is that abortion should be allowed but only within the first trimester, hence eliminating discussion of late-term abortion. Also, do shed light on the Nazi-like stance that Planned Parenthood not only has become, but has been since it's inception. It's a disgrace because young minds walk into those clinics thinking they are their friends.
Also regarding gay marriage. Give all the rights to the gays regarding marriage with one little change: Call is Marriage2 or something close to that. This way they can, in reality, say they are married, but make the distinction in the legal portion of the contract. This is very important. Real love is always the best way to go and let the gay community decide themselves their own rules regarding Divorce2.
I also strongly agree with taking an outright stance against the oppressive regimes that terrorize and slaughter gays, and not just with words. Let me rephrase that, let's take an outright stance, including with military action, to protect any humans that are being terrorized and/or slaughtered. Period.
Other than that, your letter was written beautifully and I, for one, agree and am grateful to you.
I disagree. There already was a patchwork of laws governing abortion prior to Roe v. Wade and the republic survived. From a pure role-of-government perspective, this is preferable to the current judicial fiat – THAT'S what's currently causing this conflict.
In addition to my last post, please remind the world that America has always stood for freedom and rights for individuals. We do not push our ideology on anyone. Each nations' people can choose they way they want to live; as long as that way does not include terrorizing people anywhere – inside or outside their nation. Also remind all of the great amount of humanitarian work that we have done, and are still doing for other nations.
We are a great, wealthy, and powerful country, but that is because of our freedoms acquired and retained with a lot of blood shed. Let us not forget the sacrifices made for our freedom, and sacrifice ourselves to preserve this freedom for our children and grandchildren. But remember that with great power, as we have, comes Noblesse Oblige: When one has power, wealth and prestige, one has a responsibility to use those attributes in a noble manner. Please remind the White House, the Senate and Congress of this as well and weed out the corruption under their own roofs.
Thank you.
Can I have an AMEN?
THIS is the locus of our problem with gay marriage – they want the establishment clause to mean exactly what they want it to and no more. It is a double-edged sword – keep religion out of the state, but also keep the state out of religion. They forget that in their zeal to enforce their idea of civil liberties.
Sorry, John, mine was a reply to "MovieBob" that someone got posted as being sent to you. Then IntenseDebate comment emails I get often do NOT lead back to the right place, or even take me to the comment at all, and I don't know why.
Not all wisdom started in 1960's we can find much wisdom in this countries history. We just need to spend the time and read it once in awhile.
As I've stated before, and will again, I am as opposed to gays invading the church as the other way around. Nothing good can come of either. I know Stalin dynamited churches! And I know the ACLU. I have already attacked radical gays on their relentless assaults on the Mormon Church, especially the white powder mailings. Burt our being American gays' mortal enemies on every issue helps no one.
Then we don't disagree! We CAN have an expanded definition of marriage, with all that LEGALLY implies without infringing on the rights of others who morally disagree and want nothing to do with it. I'm all for that!
Correct, Jeff. After firefighting training, this stuff doesn't scare me! FYI Everything Tech, USS Midway, CV-41. Seventh Fleet, Yokosuka. Great sushi bars and lively gals! Mechanical bull threw me there, too. Godzilla Town is also great!
BPT,
"Just because a group is powerful tells us nothing about their moral compass. Stalin was powerful. "
Very true.
Another point that Simpson misses is that the powerful can easily be brought low by a "helpless" smaller foe.
Some examples:
*The Revolutionary War ended with a handful of colonies (America) soundly beating the "invincible" British Empire.
*The Civil Rights movement demolished American racial legislation, an evil supported by the combined might of the US government, academia, po culture, the mainstream media, and terror groups (e.g., KKK)
*Prop. 8 passed in liberal California depsite "No to 8" forces being well-funded by the "all powrful" gay groups Simpson mentions above.
I'll note here that in all the above cases the victors put their faith in Christ not themselves.
So, it's a mistake for the GOP to abandon its principles on marriage for the sake of pragmatism and greater power. Note that the GOP was cast into the wilderness because the public was (justly) outraged by party abandoning its free market principles.
Got your reply via email, it's not posting here.
Ever get a blue Chuhai at Popeyes? If so, you're my kinda guy!
I mostly got his "Rum and Coke" – That is, rum with the coke passed over the glass, not poured in. Whoo!
The argument that you make is that the one or the other is not sustainable because of inter-state conflict. It was working out slowly before court activism removed it from the decision of the people.
How? I have one, (New Mexico), California has another, but you don't see us carrying on over gun rights, except from those who want Federal relief to impose one standard, and a negative one, (no ownership at all), to boot. I hold that such separation is beneficial and advantageous to both states. Anyone bringing the argument of one position or another can simply be dismissed with, "Why don't you move to California, then?", which I have used to great success. Over several things.
As to anarchy; the current Administration is anarchist appearing enough with the control policy approach now which directly threatens our liberty
Can that be changed, even improved? Yes, by devolving the power from Washington DC, where legislators are offered legal bribery to sustain the unsustainable out of sight of the people. Case in point: Chrysler was given bailout money, yet still failed. Who will pay? Us. GM? Us, but even more. Banks? The money was used to attempt to strengthen their bottom lines, not to assist those paying for it. Us. Bailout was even worse.
Washington DC has no more an idea how to stimulate economies than they do about fluid dynamics. That job by its nature is beyond Congress and Administrations. The only thing that IS in government's control is to help or to hurt. To spend money, and through example, spend money they do not have, which hurts as the currency inflates and financial resources are removed by taxation from the people. Or, to return the assets to the people, who can make their own decisions as to what is fitting or not.
That was a GREAT video, Mr. Brinker! I am down with that 100%. And I DO notice that however strongly anyone disagrees with me here, no one's telling me to "SHUT UP, TEABAGGER!" One more reason I'm a Republican. It's called Freedom of Speech, which we Nazis support, and the freedom-loving Left wants to duct tape. I recommend all of you check this Klavan video out. Pushing 60,000 views on YT.
That was a GREAT video, Mr. Brinker! I am down with that 100%. And I DO notice that however strongly anyone disagrees with me here, no one's telling me to "SHUT UP, TEABAGGER!" One more reason I'm a Republican. It's called Freedom of Speech, which we Nazis support, and the freedom-loving Left wants to duct tape. I recommend all of you check this Klavan video out. Pushing 60,000 views on YT.
John, just remember — if you're pissing off everybody, you're probably on the right track. It's a brilliant article, and much of it I agree with wholeheartedly.
John wrote
"A stable monogamous gay or lesbian couple, while they may be living in sin as far as many religious people are concerned, is not really much of a threat to society or other people's children."
Not true.
One of Prop. 8's biggest supporters is David Blankenhorn, a pro-gay Democrat who thinks gay "marriage" is a bad idea. Here is an excerpt from his column, "Protecting Marriage to Protect Children":
"Marriage is society's most pro-child institution. In 2002 — just moments before it became highly unfashionable to say so — a team of researchers from Child Trends, a nonpartisan research center, reported that "family structure clearly matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.
All our scholarly instruments seem to agree: For healthy development, what a child needs more than anything else is the mother and father who together made the child, who love the child and love each other.
For these reasons, children have the right, insofar as society can make it possible, to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into this world. The foundational human rights document in the world today regarding children, the 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, specifically guarantees children this right. The last time I checked, liberals like me were supposed to be in favor of internationally recognized human rights, particularly concerning children, who are typically society's most voiceless and vulnerable group. Or have I now said something I shouldn't? "
Read the rest of the column here:
http://www.citizenlink.org/clcommentary/A00000824...
If a pro-gay Democrat can acknowledge that gay "marriage" is bad for society, why are some Republicans willing to support redefining marriage? It's like a capitalist Republican supporting Congress' socialist "stimulus" bill.
Good article, articulate and pragmatic, but frankly, Mr. Simpson, it ain't gonna happen.
Hard core Republicans like Sean and Rush will never concede their "core principles" and that includes antipathy to gay marriage and an almost Wahabbiesque determination to oppose a woman's right to make her own decisions about pregnancy.
Just as Democrats feel they have the right to decide how much Americans should and can earn, Republicans believe Americans should not be allowed to make social decisions of which they don't approve. Both use the state to "repress" those behaviors of which they don't approve — in the Dems' case, productivity and prosperity — in the Repubs' case social behaviors.
And therein lies the rub.
The electorate sashays back and forth, first electing Republicans, then Democrats, desperately trying to reach a middle ground — So now we have a bureaucracy, propaganda media, education system, House, Senate, Judiciary and Presidency which are all to the far left. What is ironic is that which the hard core Republicans despise most (abortion and gay marriage) will become the law. Lotta good it did them to rant and rave about it these past how many years?
The Platform you describe would make a fantastic Third Party and, I think, within two election cycles, would be in the WH and in the majority in all the ELECTED branches of government. (The UNELECTED branches of Gov., propaganda (media), bureaucracy, education (brainwashing) are in the Lefts' grip now and for many years to come.
I believe Perot was just twenty years before his time. I think were he running on his Reform Party ticket in 2012, he just might win. What people seem to forget (or never knew) is that in 1850 there WAS NO REPUBLICAN PARTY, but by 1860, a Republican (Lincoln) was president.
Again, congrats! Great article.
To show you how profoundly wrong you are, I get to point at another country, Ireland. Until the current global economic crash, they had a tremendous high tech boom, many companies setting up shop there. There were several news reports, think I recall a 60 Minutes piece, about all the Americans moving there for work, even those who had emigrated here from Ireland. And in Ireland, abortion is banned.
Companies locate based on expected profitability, factoring in things like taxes, regulations, transportation costs based on proximity to suppliers and customers. Companies, especially high tech, know they can get workers as needed, just takes money, and they may factor in lower-cost employees in a locating decision. If other factors are right, they'll even train their own work force.
Your assumptions are based on this false belief that "young people" are some unified block that will revolt and move based on their unanimous condemnation because of this single issue they hold so dear it is, dare I say, sacred to them. Since they can't even agree together on what vehicles to buy or soda to drink, your assumptions are laughable.
Reagan took positions that were grossly unpopular with the Chattering Classes, and proved with Charm and Fight that the Chatterers were wrong. In his day, Establishment Republicans like our esteemed host, counselled defeatism. They too were wrong.Border Control, Creationism, Skepticism about AGW, Lower Taxes, Porkbusting, Pro-Life, 2nd Amendment, Prop 8….all these are winning issues where the public clearly supports the Conservative answer. The problem we have is that not enough of our side really are on our side. Many of them fake it. Others are moderates, and gum up the works.
Fred, Google "Reagan Briggs Initiative". Pissed off even more Righties than here. I think by now even he would say, in his own inimitable style, "Ahh, what the hell. As long as they don't force churches to do it." IMHO. And my views are very clear on big government and spending. Supporting gay marriage is NOT like supporting the economic strangulation of America. Ain't even the same f*cking sport!
Here's my deal on hate crimes legislation. It's one thing to for a drug dealer or gangsta to take a head shot from another. Taking a head shot because you're black, Hispanic, Muslim. Jew, white, a fag or a dyke, a little different, IHMO. Considering the cases of James Byrd and Matthew Shepherd, I would consider the purely spiteful motivation ofr the crime an aggravating factor that puts in death penalty territory. For ANY race or creed! Discuss.
John, very thought-provoking. I found myself very much in agreement with a lot of what you have said. However, while I oppose gay marriage, we DO need to be at the forefront of human rights re gays. Speaking out against the slaughter of innocent people (gays included) around the world is a good start.
As far as foreign policy goes, Reagan supported pro-democracy groups in oppressive regimes such as Iran, Nicaragua, etc. But he wasn't afraid to go after those thugs that harmed Americans, as demonstrated by his going after Khadafy. (LOVED the video, BTW!) A return to Reagan-style foreign policy is a MUST.
As far as the GOP appealing to the black community, they need to adopt the ideas of the late Jack Kemp. He created "enterprise zones" in the 1980's in his Buffalo-area district, where businesses were given tax credits for opening in black communities. He was one of the rare Republicans that consistently got over 50% of the black vote. And as you stated in your abortion section, Planned Parenthood needs to be called out for its practices in the black community.
We CAN win again IF we stand STRONG on conservative principles, and NOT back down from them.
Too late. The 100+ year old Catholic Adoption Services of Massachusetts is already closed down.
Christian owned banquet facilities in New Jersey are being forced to allow Homosexuals to use their facilities against their will.
This is the real agenda of irgender marriage. A tiny group backed by the media seeking to impose it's viewpoint on society, trying to change the fundamental meaning of the word by excluding gender from it's definition, under the guise of civil rights.
@MovieBob
You're "us vs them" argument falls apart for the following reasons:
*There are pro-gay Dems like David Blakenhorn who think legalizing gay "marriage" would destroy American society:
http://www.citizenlink.org/clcommentary/A00000824...
*There are celebrities of the gay lifestyle like Elton John who think gay "marriage" is unnecessary:
http://www.protectmarriage.com/article/elton-john...
*There are members of California's gay community who voted FOR Prop. 8:
http://www.worldmag.com/webextra/14623
Hence, it's a small but vocal segment of the gay community (e.g., Perez Hilton) who are pushing for the redefinition of marriage. Most simply don't see the point of getting "married."
The concept of moving to where the work is, is nothing new, it's been done here since before the country was founded. But given the option, humans are not gypsies by nature. I don't have time to dig up all the studies, this one from Stanford shows how closely new teachers, who are college educated, stick to their hometowns. Humans generally tend to grow roots, they dislike change and staying where they are is overwhelmingly the norm, a process accelerated when children arrive.
Oh that's right, you're advocating the easy removal of that onerous and unwanted impediment to career advancement, thus allowing easier migration. Nevermind.
'That's what birth control is for.'
The problem with that is that many religions (Catholicism is a good recent example) completely oppose birth control. It's a double-edged sword for many women, which simply isn't fair. In many situations in the modern world, abstinence is no longer practical, or an easy position to follow through. Also, not all women who get pregnant had any choice in the matter. A child who is not created through love is already at a disadvantage, especially if the mother was a victim of senseless rape. Instead of a blanket policy allowing or prohibiting, each case ought to be judged individually.
You are correct about standing on principles. The GOP got hosed in November because many people didn't have a clue WHAT the party stood for. GOP leadership must get back to the right instead of continue to lurch left-and Democrat-lite.
Everyday people of the GOP get this and are fed up with 100 days of Far Left policies:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21677.h...
So, the GOP has nothing to lose standing by principle and a whole lot to gain.
Hey Hollywood, what we need is an "It's A Wonderful Life" movie about America. Show what it would be like in this world had America never been born.
I'm with ya, Andy! DC is like Orwell's Animal Farm! Reform is Reduction, IMHO. Look. Here's the deal. Whatever coalition of voters I could assemble that were in favor of the really HUGE issues, the ones the LibDems are totally trashing right now, if it involves acknowledging women have a legal right they already have, and allowing gays their freedoms while preserving religious rights as well, I'm there.
No on Popeye's, but I did have a few Singapore Slings where they were invented, the Raffles Hotel in Singapore. That work for ya?
As a godless lesbian liberal, I hear you on that. Our political system has become far too polarized, to the point where most Democrats automatically reject Republican ideas out of hand, and vice versa. There's so little intelligent debate — just pointless insults and name-calling.
Amen. Right now, we have enough problems we have to deal with on our home turf.
Well, I disagree. I don't see Christian fundamentalists as the problem–unless we're talking about kooks. (I probably could be clearer on who I think is kookish, because one woman's kook may be another woman's role model.)
But I digress.
I think a solid foundation of conservative Christians, Jews, Pagans, and please don't be offended if I didn't list your dogma, as just that–a solid foundation.
I am not trying to talk you into believing what I believe, Movie Bob. I am just informing you of my opinion.
I don't see the problem as the republican party is too religious. I see the problem as the republican party is not conservative enough.
vwhizbang, the fact that you can't see that surrendering on those principles GUARANTEES the destruction of America (the America of the Founders, at any rate) speaks volumes about your lack of understanding. They are the "corest" of core conservative/Constitutionalist principles. They are not secondary issues or instances of special pleading. The fact that you don't understand that says nothing about the truth of the matter. It simply demonstrates your lack of understanding. (Think about it. By your argument, slavery was just a minor matter that had neither an important nor a direct bearing upon the nature of American liberty.)
But that's ok. You and Mr. Simpson go right on along with your "me too, only slower" program of creeping despotism. I'm sure your children and your children's children will thank you.
You had to spend a little time in the Honch… and Popeyes was INFAMOUS (gomi furniture – check!). Go past the FRA and it was the first bar on the left. Of course, it always had Shore Patrol parked right in front, there was always a fight at one point in the night.
And of course I had a Sling at the Raffles…who would want to miss that? Of course my favorite in Singapore was Brannigans. Met THE most beautiful girl…..
"That said, we can't look like we wish to impose a theologically-based belief in a sectarian society on an unwilling minority."
LawhawkSF, this is insanity. We have not "imposed," nor proposed to impose, a single, g**damned thing. It's the sodomites who are imposing their pollution on us night and day. Have you succumbed to the Stockholm syndrome? This stuff didn't start with any popular outcry or demand from the voters. It began, like every single cultural victory of the Left has, with the imposition of their bulls*** on us by subversives in black robes.
I cannot believe the ease with which so-called conservatives are letting one pretty boy, who got elected solely on the strength of a complicit and dishonest media which refused to vet him or ask serious questions, cow them into thinking they're on the losing side of these issues. Did Prop 8, passed in one of the most liberal, screwball states in the country, mean nothing? We need to stand strong and make the serious arguments of statesmen against the left, vice the name-calling and elementary school reasoning they employ against us. People can tell the difference, even if they can't always follow our arguments, but there must in the first place BE a difference. (This last paragraph's not aimed at you, but said just in general.)
Danebramage, The America of the Founders didn't have Suffrage. That evolved, as I believe gay rights are today. And I am SICK of Righties comparing abortion to slavery here! You sound like libtards, jumping from one point to the next! Won't at least acknowledge to women their LEGAL right to choice? Too far left to go for ya? I'd rather deal with REALITY and try to reform the corrupt abortion industry!
Once again, another RINO expects the Republican party to abandon its principles to win a couple of elections. I do not care about gay rights and I never will. Those people have enough rights as it is. They have the same exact rights anyone else in this country has, and all they're doing is trying to move mountains to get people to accept their behavior. I will not stand for it. I will not vote for any Republican that goes soft on the gay 'marriage' issue.
As for illegal immigration, it needs to be stopped. We should not give the ones who are here amnesty – we need to figure out a low-cost method of getting them back to their countries. Once they're home, they're not our problem anymore. Other countries need to make incentives to keep their citizens at home, or to at least have them immigrate to our country legally.
As for abortion, I am not wavering on that either. If we do have to go back to the days of coat hangers and alleys, then so be it. Any woman choosing to do so will know the consequences and it won't be my fault or my problem if she does so.
What we need to do, as Republicans, is do a better job of putting forth the reasons why we believe the way we do, instead of going 'oh, well the world is changing around us so we need to conform what our enemy thinks is right so we can win some elections'.
This kind of stuff is incredibly upsetting. Not all change is good, and certainly this whole 'gays are powerful' and 'women should have abortions whenever they want' is certainly not good and I am not going to roll over and give up like a coward, because changing one's stance on these positions as you've described above is most definitely the cowardly thing to do. I'd expect far more from a Reaganite.
Yes, this world is changing, but it's changing for the worse.
[...] I have also served this nation proudly in uniform for six years, and don’t regret a minute of it. click for more var gaJsHost = ((”https:” == document.location.protocol) ? “https://ssl.” : [...]
I was a strong supporter of Prop 8, in large part because of the attack of the left on traditional American values and religious freedom. We were discussing political strategy, not how we personally view the specific issues. I simply believe that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Several of my straight liberal and moderate friends were buying into the "hate" thing. I explained in clear certain terms why this had nothing to do with hate, and why it served no genuine purpose for gays, and was destructive for the rest of us. At the end, all but one agreed with me, and one even joined in campaigning for Prop 8. We can oppose gay marriage without looking like wild-eyed zealots, and we are more likely to succeed by convincing people that the current gay agenda has nothing to do with equality or marriage, but is actually an attack on traditional American values and religion. Overly strident attacks on issues affecting gays makes us look like unthinking bullies, gives them the ability to "prove" that we're haters, and bring out the natural affinity of Americans to support the "underdog." Let's not hand them the ammunition to shoot us with. Note my post again, and you will see that I said "we cannot look like we're trying to impose a theologically based-belief in a sectarian society on an unwilling minority." I didn't say I believed that is what we are doing. The operative word was "look." I know who the real oppressors are here, but handled wrong, it shifts the blame to us. We didn't pick this fight, but if we're not careful, we'll lose it. I don't want to be right on the issue, but lose the fight because of bad tactics. Nope–no Stockholm syndrome here.
Marie, We ain't going back to coat hangers. Obama's got one SCOTUS pick, and will have more. Stick a fork in overturning Roe V. Wade. I would like to stop the rampant corruption in America's abortion industry. But, since you and others are too busy doing the Mommie Dearest routine, that'll never happen. And look up Reagan and the Briggs Initiative to define Reaganite. EOM.
By the way, I understand how angry this makes most of us. But even I can sound calm, cool and collected when it serves my ultimate goal. Please think for just a minute how hard campaigning for Prop 8 was for us in San Francisco. I would have accomplished nothing in some of our public confrontations had I allowed my real anger to show at the mindlessness and viciousness of the opposition. But I made my point, and even though I may not have swayed a lot of votes, on at least two occasions, I was able to stay so calm in the face of the venom, that two gay opponents of Prop 8 started telling the small groups yelling at me to shut up and let me speak. One even shouted "cool it, who are the real haters here?" I considered that a victory of sorts.
Everything Tech…heh.
They still think that to this day, poor sods.
I had friends who were on the Midway, but I was there shortly after she left – USS Independence was the carrier in the early 90's. Had some problems early on with those who didn't like Japan. I loved it, it was fascinating and fun. Everything was about 4/5 scale – the streets, the people, everything. Their society was very visual, too.
Did you ever do a Japanese bath?
Mr. Simpson, why pretend you can't see the connection between slavery and abortion (that is, they both treat human beings as objects to be done with as one pleases)?
Your position on abortion could be likened to someone saying, "You don't like slavery? No one's forcing you to own one!" Your desire to reform the abortion industry is equivalent to calling for better food and fewer beatings for slaves.
You may disagree with this, but the fact that you duck this particular argument leads me to believe it makes you uncomfortable.
I would, too. That's remarkable.
That's correct. In Connecticut, we had a civil unions provision for homosexuals. Then some of them got the state Supreme Court to declare that that was discriminatory. They can now officially get "married," and the only difference is the name.
Do you have any reason for the arbitrary division of gestation into trimesters? Is there a scientific or moral justification for recognizing the rights of some fetuses but not others based on the passage of a day or two?
Moi, duck arguments? LOL! I would have never written this piece if the idea was to duck arguments, Mike! Look, I don't like abortion. It's a waste of life. And I definitely don't like it being corrupted and industrialized! But it is the law, and I don't see it being overturned. Not by an Obama court. Trying to reform it where I can, like PBA. And it's abortion, Mike. NOT slavery! Focus.
Mike, again, I believe religions should be free to call 'em as they see 'em, and not be compelled outside their belief system. I believe the same for gays. I see it as a purely civil issue. A legal right, JOP. Though it would be interesting to see them try to compel a mosque to marry gay, LOL! Ya, as if.
Exactly. Instead of Occam's Razor, "A difference that makes no difference IS NO difference", we get further encroachment on religious practice. Even the establishment of a church that recognizes homosexual marriage would be inadequate. EVERYONE must acknowledge "marriage" of every type and strata, multiples, bestiality, exploitative, and homosexual; or you will be branded with the "intolerant" iron of shame.
I must point this out; WHO is INTOLERANT now? The Activist Gay, who seeks not equality, but the destruction of any perceived slight, however non-existent or trivial.
Case in point: Perez Hilton.
Then you're ignoring what's already happened, Mr. Simpson. The Catholic Church has stopped providing its adoption services in Massachusetts because the state ordered them to place children with married homosexual couples. This is the road we're going to be going down all over the country, and it's already started. Any church which doesn't recognize gay marriage will be hounded until it does, or it's forced to throw in the towel and disengage from society.
You accuse people who disagree with you on this issue of being intolerant, when all the stalkings, threats, intimidation and assaults over Prop 8 were perpetrated by the people you agree with. I'd like to take a "live and let live" attitude, Mr. Simpson. But that's not possible if your opponents refuse.
Pick any position you want on abortion, and I can label it "arbitrary":
The moment of conception as the beginning of life, and the moment a fetus deserves full rights as a human being? Why stop there? Why not grant the right to life to every sperm, and declare every teenage boy who ever tossed off in to a sock a mass murderer?
What is so special and unique about conception? A fertilized emryo is no more able to think, support itself, or show any sign of viability than the unfertilized zygote or free-swimming sperm were twelve hours or two weeks before.
Sorry, but no one can convince me a bundle of cells is deserving of the same rights as a newborn infant.
Regarding my "opportunism" comment, perhaps the original article could have better explained how your abortion and gay rights positions were in accordance with support for individual rights as a counter to the left's collectivist mentality.
As it was, I got a sense in the original article that the GOP should simply adopt Democratic Party positions because the Democrats were winning with them. With that I stridently disagree. The GOP should adopt individualist positions on gay rights and abortion because it is the right thing to do, not because it will make liberals like us.
On that note, I don't believe the GOP should support hate crimes legislation, nor should it support full recognition for gay marriage, as opposed to civil unions, on the federal level.
Republicans don't win if social conservatives stay home, and it's ridiculous to suggest that we have to pull away from everything but fiscal and national security conservatism when the economy and the war are we LOST ON, not abortion and gay marriage. Obama had to oppose gay marriage to be a viable candidate, as well as dissemble about his position on abortion (trotting out the old "I'm personally pro-life" smokescreen).
And here's a reality for you: the notion that time marches on and changes attitudes on IS A FARCE. Insofar as there's been a change in attitudes on these issues, it's been because one has been consciously and deliberately engineered culturally. And isn't that what this site is about, learning to take back the reigns of culture and smash the left-wing monopoly on the media?
The cap tax on Carbon emissions is in no way shape or form a Ponzi scheme.. at least you're starting to get your heads screwed on straight regarding gay rights, abortion (back alley's are no alternative srsly), and the legalization of Marijuana. WHICH the right wings propaganda has made illegal for over 70 yrs. AND it accomplished nothing. Well done.
John, John, John…. I read at the bottom of the first comment page where you wrote "I knew this was going to happen". Of course you did, because deep down you know that what you are trying to sell already broken. You start you're article explaining your conservative Republican background, but by the end it seems that the reason you started off that way was as an effort to say, "hey guys, I really am conservative, really, despite what I'm about to say".
I would sum up you article this way. "Winning elections is more important than upholding our basic principles"
Slavery is still an issue, but now is a weapon against the liberals. The welfare state and the failure of our education system to educate minorities has kept them in bondage, beholden to the Government and their liberal slave owners. The Dems with their aversion to vouchers, by killing the D.C. experimental project even thought it was succeeding, shows their contemp for the people they pretend to represent. "Modern Day Slavery" should be a talking point for every Republican.
Here is a great article that shows that you're wrong about abortion. It shows that more young people are slowly turning against abortion and for older people it's a statistical tie. It also backs up my point of how in the long run, it will not benefit us. Besides, where do you vote for abortion or gay marriage? All this social stuff that everyone is talking about is not what we elect people for. We elect people to keep us safe and insure domestic tranquility. Where in the Constitution does it say – organize an agreeable social atmosphere for all? That's up to each community or state to decide and Government should stay out of it.
GOP Woes and Social Conservatives
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/gop_woes_a...
Mr. Simpson-
I applaud you with your article here on two counts:
1. To my mind, I'd really like to have a multi-party system in America. To that end, having a single party is even worse than only having two parties! While I may be an Obama supporter, I am not so whole-hog that don't also value the positive role that a healthy opposition party has to insure that the power-in party is held in check (i.e. their best ideas make it through- their lesser ideas are called out, etc). I feel that the Republicans need to rebuild and regain their posture, and as part of this, the party of Lincoln needs to re-find itself. Part of this is an internal discussion. Your voice is a part of that.
2. In the spirit of the re-tooling that is to happen, you strike a few defiant blows – legalization & gay rights very notably. Bravo for you.
Now, since I am a troll after all- here's my critical advice:
* Don't be the party of "Waiting for Dem's to overreach". To a degree, the Dem's overreaching may be inevitable. However, don't hold your breath. I have confidence in Obama that he will set a new standard for centrist discipline & modestly-larger-but-still-effective-government. You may all hope that I am wrong (or be passionately convinced that I am wrong), but I wouldn't bet your strategy on simply waiting for your enemy to screw up.
* Cool it on the "we love America and you don't" shtick. That’s part of what got you people to your current low.
"a reprobate Nazi"
… is there any other kind?
This is in reply to your message as a whole: I completely agree. I think that any time Obama is on TV, the first thing the Repubs need to do is get on TV and get their message across. Even though the MSM is probably averse to it, if you beat on enough doors they have to listen. Get on the TV as often as possible and reiterate your message. Join groups, do anything to get that message across; and one important thing: we need to be ARTICULATE and retain our polite manners. A lot of Repubs aren't vocal because they think it's rude, but there's a difference. Libs are out there trashing us every day, why not just counter them with calm, VOCAL rationality? That's our big downfall; we're not making our voices heard, and our politicians are laying down and crying instead of standing up.
MJ, Gay Marriage doesn't involve sex with horses, polygamy or sex slaves. THAT is all illegal. And NO ONE would vote in bestiality! I would oppose that with every fiber of my being! Come on! Stay on topic! Don't go libtard on me.
Dan, You got it backwards. What I said was, it is better to face modern realities than to sacrifice future elections. Abortion is legal and won't be overturned, not with an Obama SCOTUS. Let's accept that fact and reform the industry from its current Dr. Mengele-like status. And gay marriage is an inevitability, IMHO. Now look up Reagan and the Briggs Initiative. See how far off the mark I am with him. Which I ain't.
Where is history do you find any support of this.
Reading the first ammendment one must assume that you have it backword. Our forefathers supported a policy keeping the state out of church. "Separation of Church and State" is a legal fiction created by activist judges and has no basis in the constituion, the first ammednment or the federalist papers.
Funny how the actions of this "philosophy" expresses itself in limiting people's rights to practice there religion when and where they want. It is the exact opposite of
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Danny,
With all seriousness, Planned Parent hood was started by a "eugenics" enthusiasist who wanted to use abortion as a way to cull the overpopulation by undesirable. She at one time did think Hitler was a nice guy.
The point of the "Pro Choice" lobby is not changed. Oh, maybe they don't admit it's about certain minorities or maybe they truly have "overcome" their racism and now want to truly euthanize the shallower ends of the gene pool as it were no matter what race or creed they may be.
With what argument are you going to make to someone who engages in an amoral belief under deceptive arguments to promote a political agenda too horrendous to admit to the public.
There is no debate about the quality of life with fascists who feel that life has no quality. This reasoned debate about where the line crosses will never occur.
But her's a thought, most Doctor;s now give women a due date for their birth. If the woman does not go into labor by then they will have her pck her bags, come to the hospital and induce labor for insurance reasons ..er.. I mean the health of the baby.
We have incubation chambers and computer monitors that can literally ensure that a baby survives and grows to be a healthy child that is as much as five months premature. No Joke I have seen it.
With current advances in cloning technology artificial wombs will become a reality. Soon after that they will very likely be the norm. A computer can montor all development of a fetus and make adjustments as required to maximize the health and development of the child.
At this point what argument for a women's rights to her body is there. If it is the donation of the egg then we have to give the father the same rights for the donation of the sperm. The Abortion argument is illogical. It requires as its legal test the "birth" of the child which today is malleable by the doctors and in the future may never occur. Technology has outpaced this decision.
That's my point. How about keeping your three categories, but tying them to benchmarks such as the presence of a heartbeat and the age of viability? It would still be an arbitrary distinction, but the distinction would be based on something concrete.
It IS pertinent John. As Mike posted, the change in Connecticut was over the WORD, not the RIGHT. The rights encoded in the law were gender-neutral and established equality, yet the affected populace continued to push for a WORD change.
Why?
Because the WORD "marriage" was the target all along, not the rights in themselves. If the term "marriage" is the target, at some point, groups with their own agendas will also seek "marriage" for their agendas, just as the gay/lesbian sector did.
I could see several bigamist/polygamist groups push immediately for recognition, insofar as their "marriage" definition could be seen in certain circumstances as being less controversial than gay/lesbian "marriage". WHEN that happens, and it will, with precedent now established and given the general level of insanity in behavior now, where will it stop? The "legality" argument you make no longer holds. Gay/lesbian "marriage", which was illegal itself once, is going to not be soon, with and due to the war drumbeat from the intolerant Gay Activists. When the more outre people seek equal protection arguments in front of certain courts, especially with Hopey's next four years to seek judicial nominations with "feel" rather than sound legal footing in law and Constitution, there is no argument that can be made that might not be heard and ruled in favor of. Remember, there have been several recent cases where bestiality acts and arrests have been ruled out of order and tossed.
What part of my argument did you see me say that you should not continue to fight for Pro-life issues? I was saying that we need to have a serious debate about when life begins, and work backwards from partial birth abortion (a procedure that any idiot would deem as ending the life of a HUMAN) toward whatever position that science and debate helps us determine that human life begins.
As for saying that they won't have a reasoned debate- then that's fine. The other part of my post involved neutralizing the MSM and bringing back a responsible media where we can show them to be amoral and foolish. However, we can't do that by letting the MSM portray everyone on the right as a religious bigot. (I'm not saying that is what you are, I'm saying that is what the media is saying).
The first battle MUST be for the hearts and minds of the American People by forcing the media back to reporting the news fairly. Then we can engage in the other debates. Until we do that, we are doomed to failure.
I don't think I have anything backwards, John. I respect your opinion, as I do any liberal minded thinker. This is America, after all. But there is no denying that what you suggest is a movement farther to the left. You talk about todays "realities". When I hear that, and I am not alone, I hear F you and your moral beliefs. It suggests that debate must come to an end, which is a tactic that the left loves to use. While not really a moral issue, global warming comes to mind.
As far as abortion goes, to argue in it's favor by saying it's legal simply doesn't hold water. For one, the legal decision allowing abortion relies on "penumbras of the constitution". The Supreme Courts job is to interperet the Constitution, not to just make stuff up. Making stuff up is the job of the Legislative branch. Second, slavery, for example, was once legal in this country. People fought and died in a war to maintain that way of life. Fortunately, they lost. There can be misplaced passion for any number of "personal rights". I will never waiver on this subject. Neither should you, if you think that it is wrong.
Now gay marriage. I know a gay guy who lives a gay life. He's a good guy, he wants gay marriage legal in our state. I disagree with him. I also no a guy who lived that life, but chose to move on to a heteosexual lifestyle and marriage and kids. He's happy, but it was a choice he had to make. He looks at it this way (as do I). There are lots of heterosexual people who live together and never marry. Some even have children. They are a minority for sure, but they're out there. For those that choose a gay life, they are making that choice to live outside the institutions of marriage. I say God bless them, be happy, come on over for dinner sometime, but don't pretend that your not living outside the norm. The more we tinker with what marriage means, the less meaning it has.
Having said all that, I'm not immune to compromise. But I ask you. What has the left ever given us, when it comes to these types of issues? The way I see it, the right is expected to give and give and give and then shut up and accept the new "realities". Sorry, I don't play that way. Elections are elections. Some will go my way and others won't. But I am, as an individual American, happy to be among a confident minority.
[...] May 5, 2009 A Republican Platform for the 21st Century [...]
[...] really thought my Republican platform piece here at BH would have been my last for awhile. Plenty for readers of all stripes to chew on. And I [...]
[...] On Earth Day John T. Simpson, Big Hollywood: Earth Day: Then They Came for the Overweight and A Republican Platform For The 21st CenturyFrugal Café Blog Zone: Leapfrogging Powers! Waxman Says He Will Jump Over Subcommittee to Ram [...]
[...] Global Warming John T. Simpson, Big Hollywood: Earth Day: Then They Came for the Overweight and A Republican Platform For The 21st Century PA Pundits – International: The Waxman Markey Bill – Electrical Power Horror Scared Monkeys: [...]
[...] Global Warming John T. Simpson, Big Hollywood: Earth Day: Then They Came for the Overweight and A Republican Platform For The 21st Century Wired, Danger Room, What’s Next in National Security: Army: Sun, Not Man, Is Causing Climate [...]
[...] Global Warming John T. Simpson, Big Hollywood: Earth Day: Then They Came for the Overweight and A Republican Platform For The 21st Century Wired, Danger Room, What’s Next in National Security: Army: Sun, Not Man, Is Causing Climate [...]
[...] Global Warming John T. Simpson, Big Hollywood: Earth Day: Then They Came for the Overweight and A Republican Platform For The 21st Century Wired, Danger Room, What’s Next in National Security: Army: Sun, Not Man, Is Causing Climate [...]
[...] Global Warming John T. Simpson, Big Hollywood: Earth Day: Then They Came for the Overweight and A Republican Platform For The 21st Century Wired, Danger Room, What’s Next in National Security: Army: Sun, Not Man, Is Causing Climate [...]
[...] Cap-and-Trade Bill John T. Simpson, Big Hollywood: Earth Day: Then They Came for the Overweight and A Republican Platform For The 21st Century Wired, Danger Room, What’s Next in National Security: Army: Sun, Not Man, Is Causing Climate [...]
[...] Cap-and-Trade Bill John T. Simpson, Big Hollywood: Earth Day: Then They Came for the Overweight and A Republican Platform For The 21st Century Wired, Danger Room, What’s Next in National Security: Army: Sun, Not Man, Is Causing Climate [...]
My response to you at the DMV would have been that I'd be happy to stand in such a line for healthcare. It would be much preferable to what I do now, which is suffer with NONE! You people really can't see the forest for the trees. You defend a system of private insurance that denies not only me, but also YOU! I have a chronic illness which makes me uninsurable. Too bad for me, huh? Conservatives don't have a kind bone in their "small-government-equally-small-minded" bodies.
Ñîâðåìåííàÿ ÑÒÎ ýôôåêòèâíî è êà÷åñòâåííî âûïîëíÿåò ñâîè ôóíêöèè ïðè ïîìîùè ðàçëè÷íîãî âèäà îáîðóäîâàíèÿ…
àâòîðåìîíò…
Øèðîêèé ñïåêòð ñîâðåìåííîãî øàõòíîãî è ãîðíîîáîãàòèòåëüíîãî îáîðóäîâàíèÿ íàñ÷èòûâàåò áîëåå 100 íàèìåíîâàíèé…
âèáðàòîðû, ãðîõîòû, æåëåçîîòäåëèòåëè…
àñôàëüòîóêëàä÷èêè, àâòîêðàíû, áóëüäîçåðû, ãðåéäåðû, êàòêè, ïîãðóç÷èêè, ýêñêàâàòîðû…
Ïîãðóç÷èêè èñïîëüçóþòñÿ äëÿ çàñûïêè, ðàñêîïêè, âûðàâíèâàíèè è äðóãèõ ðàáîò ñ ðàçëè÷íûìè ìàòåðèàëàìè…
çàðàáîòîê â èíòåðíåòå…
èíñòðóêòîð…
Ïÿòèçâåçäî÷íûå îòåëè Åãèïòà…
Åãèïåò – æåì÷óæèíà ìèðîâîé êóëüòóðû…
You must be logged in to post a comment.