Every year on this date, the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we pause here at RedState to remember the fallen and renew our commitment to do everything within the confines of the lawful political process that may be done to end the greatest injustice that has ever been foisted on our society.
The Declaration of Independence reflects a truth held self-evident by the founders and every subsequent generation of Americans: that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These principles were subsequently enshrined in the United States Constitution in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Twice in our nation’s history, arrogant and power-mad Supreme Court Justices have declared that certain humans are exempt from the promise of the Declaration and the guarantees of the Constitution.
In the first instance, in Scott v. Sandford, the Supreme Court drew a line and declared that those on the “slave” side of the line were entitled to no protection from the law, and could be treated with impunity by their masters. That slaves were human was beyond dispute; instead, the Court found solace in an artificial and tortured distinction which treated those humans belonging to the category of “slave” as a special kind of human that was not to be treated like the rest of humanity.
In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court repeated the same exercise, this time engaging in spectacular mental gymnastics with the word “person”:
The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. . . . The Constitution does not define “person” in so many words.
And thus the Supreme Court drew a line and declared that those humans on the “person” side were entitled to the right to life, and those on the “non-person” side (as defined by the Court) were not. The combined effect of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton was that a line was drawn at physical location within a woman’s womb.
Earlier this week, the entire world was horrified by the story of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia abortionist who was arrested and charged with eight counts of murder when it came to light that he had stabbed at least eight children whom he had unsuccessfully attempted to abort in the back of the head. Although Dr. Gosnell’s story is horrifying, the only reason it is newsworthy is because the American public’s conscience has been trained to ignore the fact that worse monstrosities than Gosnell’s occur thousands of times every single day in America, because the victims of these monstrosities are on the wrong side of the arbitrary line drawn by our black-robed masters. We reject this exercise in willful ignorance and on this day we force ourselves to remember, that our consciences may still be pricked, and so that we will not become callous to that which is evil and regard it as an unimportant or secondary concern in our political activism.
Here at RedState, we too have drawn a line. We will not endorse any candidate who will not reject the judicial usurpation of Roe v. Wade and affirm that the unborn are no less entitled to a right to live simply because of their size or their physical location. Those who wish to write on the front page of RedState must make the same pledge. The reason for this is simple: once before, our nation was forced to repudiate the Supreme Court with mass bloodshed. We remain steadfast in our belief that this will not be necessary again, but only if those committed to justice do not waiver or compromise, and send a clear and unmistakable signal to their elected officials of what must be necessary to earn our support.
God bless America, and those who have taken time from their busy lives today to travel in the cold to Washington, DC to peacefully march in protest and remembrance. We stand with you.
Moe Lane
PG DeFreese
Victoria Coates
Daniel Horowitz
Dan Spencer
Santorum and Daily Kos and eugenics
bk (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 8:32AM EST (link)Rick Santorum was (yawn) called racist the other day for pointing out the disparity in abortion rates by race. A thread at Daily Kos celebrating Roe v Wade references an article at The Nation. Three groups from that article in addition to NARAL and Planned Parenthood are highlighted in the piece at Kos. Notice anything in common among them? Please remind me – who is the racist?
The National Network of Abortion Funds provide grants to low-income women who have trouble paying for abortions and works to close the gap between the legal right to abortion and safe access to abortion. …
The Young Women’s Empowerment Project organizes young women, especially young women of color, around choice and sexuality education. …
SisterSong, a women of color reproductive justice organization, was formed in 1997 to educate women of color and policy makers on reproductive and sexual health and rights, and to work towards fuller access of health services, information and resources. …
I'm concerned.
writeblock Saturday, January 22nd at 12:32PM EST (link)Let me preface what I say with the fact that I am pro-life and never have been anything other than pro-life. But I’m also very concerned about raising the profile of this issue at this critical juncture in our history. I fully appreciate this will brand me in the eyes of many as a “moderate” or a “rino.” But I wholly agree with Mitch Daniels that bringing up this issue at this time will only serve to distract us from the major issue at hand–preventing the slide to a socialist state–and will serve to further the left’s agenda by dividing social and fiscal conservatives. Nor does it serve the truth to pretend there is no division between these factions. Yes, many social conservatives are also fiscal conservatives. But many are not and vice versa.
We need to remember–using the slavery analogy–that Lincoln did not advocate outright abolition until the Civil War was fully engaged; before that he argued only to limit its spread–and he did so in order to preserve the Union and not to further divide the nation.
In like manner, we need to further our ends by defeating the forces that would push abortion on the nation. We can only do this if we continue to unite behind a fiscal, not a social, agenda. This is because many independents are pro-choice. That’s simply a fact. It’s also a fact that the Tea Party is comprised primarily of fiscal, not social conservatives. It’s the power of the Tea Party we need to harness for the next election. Do we want to alienate independent tea partiers by making abortion an issue–or do we want to win their votes to win elections–and THEN exercise political power? Only such power can limit–and perhaps end–abortions by means of conservative SC nominations. Winning primaries can’t do this. Neither can demanding conformity on social issues. We can’t do It’s a political, not a moral, decision. It’s dealing with cold reality as it is, not as we wish it were.
Politics makes strange bedfellows. Remember when Rick Santorum backed Specter and outraged pro-lifers who felt he was betraying Toomey who was then challenging Specter? Specter had the Philly suburbs in his pocket. Toomey did not. There was no way Toomey could win the state at that point and Santorum knew this. (He just barely won even in 2010.) Meanwhile the Senate GOP majority was hanging by a thread, with Specter slated to head the Judicial Committee. But Specter needed Santorum’s support in the primary–and Bush’s. He got both in return for a promise to help Bush’s nominees get through the Senate. That deal sustained our bare majority–and Specter backed both Roberts and Alito. That was a victory for pro-lifers–though many won’t acknowledge it. Instead many held grudges and voted for Casey because of what they perceived as Santorum’s betrayal–and thus gave us another liberal Senate Democrat.
In the same way pro-lifers objected to Giuliani in 2008, though he promised to nominate strict constructionists if elected. Back then he was far more powerful as a candidate than McCain or Romney
or Huckabee. But he was weak in the primaries–even though he was ahead of Obama and Hillary in my purple state, PA, by double digits and was ahead in other purple states and was ahead in blue states like NJ and CT. He was ahead in all the national polls as well–well ahead of any other GOP candidate. But the GOP rejected him, primarily because of his social views. We got McCain as a consequence–and that gave us Obama–who has been far more lethal to the pro-life cause than Giuliani ever would have been. On the contrary, Giuliani would have nominated two conservative SC justices–and the result would have been a far stronger conservative presence on the Court than is now the case. It would have been a huge pro-life victory–instead of a huge defeat.
So what does it avail us to get strident on this issue at this point if it’s self-defeating in the long run? America is divided no matter how much we wish it weren’t. Yes, it’s a matter of killing babies–but this argument only intensifies the disconnect between the two factions–and both sides only further dig in. We run a serious risk of shooting ourselves in the foot by emphasizing this particular issue at this point. We need to wait till we achieve power before we fire our salvos. Let’s allow our strongest candidates to compete everywhere without immediately disqualifying them on the basis of social issues, especially if they promise to nominate strict constructionist justices if elected. Let’s not ask for any more than that. Let’s focus on gaining power first–then apply the pressure later.
It’s a question of how to achieve a desired goal politically. We can all agree we want Obama out of office and we want the Democrats to lose. But history tells us we can expect a pretty close race in 2012, that blue states will probably remain blue and red states will probably
There is plenty of common ground it seems to me
bk (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 1:32PM EST (link)For example, I can’t imagine any tea partier who wouldn’t object to taxpayer dollars being spent on abortions here or abroad. And probably they almost unanimously detest the idea of late-term PBAs except to save the life of the mother, regardless of who is paying for it, as do most Americans.
The blue dog Dems (falsely) claim to be FiCons but not SoCons. Their non-SoCon “half” ends up leading to all sorts of programs that end up pulling money out of taxpayers, so they are little better than your avg liberal Dem.
Tea partiers on the other hand are probably both, but want to focus more on the fiscal side. But if you don’t also fight on the social side, how do you make any inroads against most of the entitlement programs?
I agree...
writeblock Saturday, January 22nd at 2:44PM EST (link)there’s plenty of common ground. But a few points:
1. The intensity of some pro-lifers can be counter-productive. Sometimes less is more. McDonnell in VA is solidly pro-life–but he emphasized fiscal issues and downplayed his social conservatism when he ran for governor–though the WP did all it could to bring those issues up, believing this would brand him as intolerant and narrow-minded in the minds of many.
2. Republicans like Giuliani, Christie and Brown who hail from blue states ought not to be judged the way we judge moderates from red states. They bring valuable assets to the GOP, including potential wins in normally Democratic–liberal–territory. This is nothing to sneeze at. It’s a powerful aid to conservative goals, even if they part with us on some social issues.
3. You make inroads on the social side by winning elections and gaining political power, not by railing against abortion in GOP primaries. That’s the one and only route to success. The name of the game is not to blast any Republican who doesn’t toe the mark 100% on social issues, but to support the single candidate most likely to win the presidency. The perfect should not be the enemy of the good. If someone like Daniels prefers to downplay social conservatism, it’s an entirely reasonable strategy. He ought not to be dissed for this.
Two out of three ain't bad.
Loren Heal (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 12:58AM EST (link)But your logic is only almost right, which is to say, it’s wrong at this critical point:
Suppose there were three candidates, any one of whom could win the office. Should we still support the one most likely to win, even if he were pro-choice?
And since (campaigns being necessary) we don’t know, a priori, which of our candidates can win, it makes little sense even to limit ourselves to only those who appear likely to win.
Now, if there are a number of acceptable candidates, uniting behind one seems proper. But to select the one most likely to win would mean, among other things, that we never primary an incumbent.
–
Join the Concord Project, and follow @lheal, if you dare.
Pro-lifers are the largest single issue voting block
JSobieski (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 1:12AM EST (link)They also make up a plurality of the volunteers (unlike the free trade types who tend not go door to door, man the phones, etc).
I would only add that the boundary of acceptabilty for me is on overturning Roe v. Wade. For example, Rudy is not pro-life. However, he knows the law, he understands the need for strict constructionist judges, etc.
I have more confidence that Rudy would nominate Justices who overturn Roe than I have in Romney or Huckabee.
This is not a plug for Rudy, just an illustration of where I draw the line for what is acceptable in my view and what is not acceptable in terms of an R presidential candidate.
There is alot of disagreement in the pro-life community with regards to what are the next step after overturning Roe (constitutional amendment the other way, federal statute, federalism/leave it to the states, etc.).
Overturning Roe just isn’t negotiable, and frankly its bad politics for the R to flirt with pro-choicers.
Pro-life voters are the only reason why R’s have a chance in states like Michigan or Pennsylvania—states where the pro-lifers outnumber the free market types by orders of magnitude.
My rules of the road for primary season.
Rule #1: Vote for YOUR first choice in the primaries
Rule #2: Vote for the R in the general.
Rule #3: Don’t let anyone convince you to violate Rule #1 or Rule #2
Rule #4: When in a center-right argument, reaffirm Rules #1-#3–it will help us all to get along better.
Rule #5: If you are using the language of the left, you probably aren’t furthering conservativism
Rule #6: The priority is issues first, candidates second, and supporters third. Nobody is bigger than the issues. Conversely, if you spend your time focusing on supporters, you are wasting everyone’s time.
STOP THE MADNESS!
A reduction in the rate of spending increases is NOT a cut!
In-state tuition for illegals is NOT amnesty!
Requiring someone to pay their medical bills is NOT an individual mandate!
Reducing tax rates is NOT a tax increase!
Neither party wins national elections singularly on the abortion issue.
bannedtroll Monday, January 24th at 4:17PM EST (link)I agree with Daniels’ strategy, but it’s not the best idea to piss off the pro-life movement before the primaries even begin. All I expect out of our next president on the abortion matter is to appoint as many Scalias to the bench as possible and reinstate the Mexico City Policy. That will lay the groundwork for overturning Roe, which is all an executive can really do right now.
I have doubts about Daniels’ viability in a general election (mostly superficial – sad that should even matter), but 2012 could be different and I could be wrong. He is obviously a smart guy, but I think more important than his height or appearance is how well he can frame the issues. If he can lay out an argument like Gingrich and point voters to his body of work in IN and contrast it with Obama’s nationally, I can’t see why Independent voters would pick him over Obama. Of all the Independent voters I know who broke for Obama last election (that would be all of them), it’s hard for me to think of any who would vote for Obama over Daniels.
Like it or not, economic issues are the most important issues to unaffiliated voters, second is national security. We win the arguments on both and should hammer every last democrat with them until they’re extinct. Look at them – they’ve lost on all the big economic issues and are hapless on national security issues. The fact their charges of racism and violence are reaching a fever pitch tells you everything you need to know. They’re not even trying to defend their legislation anymore – the best they can do is say they’re willing to “improve” Obamacare. If you are serious about breaking the grip of abortion on our society, it has to be done by breaking through to Independent voters on the issues that matter most to them. Don’t lose the forest for the trees.
I’m a banned Democrat who came here to promote the idea that Republicans are racists for disliking Barack Obama.
The abortion issue
concap (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 4:29PM EST (link)was injected into the politics of the right by the left to split the vote, not to help the right win elections.
The left does not give a rats ars about abortion one way or the other.
The Constitution is neither Right or Left, it is American.
You need neither be Right or Left to vote American.
When you vote on the Federal level based on politics, you are voting for a lobbyist to promote your own personal wants and force them on others through taxation and legislation.
FF/FS/SL/RMIL/OK
Fiscal Federal/Fiscal State/Social Local/Retired Military/Oath Keeper
Huh?
bk (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 4:33PM EST (link)“The left does not give a rats ars about abortion one way or the other.”
The lefties think abortion is the only place that the government shouldn’t have any involvement in people’s lives (other than sometimes paying for it). Do you meant that they care about abortion more for its political purposes than about abortion itself? That could be true, but I doubt it.
If Not Now, When?
Superheater (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 3:05PM EST (link)Tell me, and read the piece on Tom Ridge’s dereliction of duty re: regulating abortionists, (I called them butchers in another post, but realize butchery is moral and socially useful, my apologies to practitioners of that art)
.
Mitch Daniels is the worst sort of politician, providing intellectual justification to cowards hiding under pragmatism…
conservative purge
edwyrd (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 4:10PM EST (link)yes, to insist on puritanical christian candidates is politically suicidal. just look at the conservative alliance that brought the republicans to congressional power in november, and look at scott brown, although he has alreadsy been a disappointment .
the real noteworthy oddity of november is that quite suddenly, independants were MORE CONSERVATVE than republicans. this remains true now, and points to an unusual phenomenom; that this country, as a whole, can become MORE conservative, further right of center, NOT less. THIS is the stange unexplainable and beautiful lesson of 2010.
we pro- lifers can see a distant light, far off, but no longer invisible. we have hope, this is not a junket to hell. the voice in the wilderness has has circled back round through the forest to find us hudled at a campfire. WE are the voice of conscience of a nation, and we are being heard, and we can have an effect
“but men are different, they propound mathmatical theorms in beleaguered cities, conduct metaphysical arguments in condemned cells, make jokes on scaffolds, discuss the last new poem while advancing to the walls of quebec and comb their hair at thermopylae. it is our nature!
—C.S Lewis, weight of glory
Don't confuse social conservatism...
writeblock Saturday, January 22nd at 5:35PM EST (link)with other branches of conservatism. 2010 was a triumph of fiscal conservatism, nothing else. If you want to get an idea of how the general public reacts to social conservatism, just think back to the Terry Schiavo shocker. It was shocking how little support social conservatives had at that time. It was a true eye-opener. Generally, I’d say the public is against abortion–but not intensely so. It is not as greatly exercised on the issue as social conservatives would like. Since this is so, and since we’re not prepared to go to war over the issue, then the only avenue left for redress of this injustice is political. Political power is the only solution–and that comes by getting smarter in our political strategy. It doesn’t come by calling names and accusing other Republicans of criminality, etc. This is not helpful, it’s counterproductive and it raises everybody’s temperature. Political parties, after all, are coalitions. No faction can win an election alone. It needs the other. The name of the game should be to win, not feel good for the moment by venting.
The time is now.
concap (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 5:45PM EST (link)To rally under a united fiscal first flag. The one thing ALL conservatives can agree on.
The Constitution is neither Right or Left, it is American.
You need neither be Right or Left to vote American.
When you vote on the Federal level based on politics, you are voting for a lobbyist to promote your own personal wants and force them on others through taxation and legislation.
FF/FS/SL/RMIL/OK
Fiscal Federal/Fiscal State/Social Local/Retired Military/Oath Keeper
New Hot Topics needed "Fiscal First"
concap (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 6:03PM EST (link)..
The Constitution is neither Right or Left, it is American.
You need neither be Right or Left to vote American.
When you vote on the Federal level based on politics, you are voting for a lobbyist to promote your own personal wants and force them on others through taxation and legislation.
FF/FS/SL/RMIL/OK
Fiscal Federal/Fiscal State/Social Local/Retired Military/Oath Keeper
schiavo was a tragedy
edwyrd (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 9:35AM EST (link)governor jeb went to the wall for that lady, fighting the court with all he had, almost calling out the national guard, in the end he didn’t want an armed confrontation. then she was promptly starved to death. but i don’t remember the “lack” of support. it was the liberal agenda item that wouldn’t go away.
and i wonder, if it happened today, would the results be the same?
i am no public pulse taker, just an hombre with a laptop whos got no life, but i sense a new mood, if not in fact a quickening” pulse” of conservatism. the children in school suddenly find it “cool” to be so inclined in the new version of rebellion politics.
so i would gently caution you, with all of the respect that a poor fool such as myself can muster, not to so quickly dismiss and cull out the socon “platform planks” from the” resurrection agenda”.
“but men are different, they propound mathmatical theorms in beleaguered cities, conduct metaphysical arguments in condemned cells, make jokes on scaffolds, discuss the last new poem while advancing to the walls of quebec and comb their hair at thermopylae. it is our nature!
—C.S Lewis, weight of glory
The polls showed...
writeblock Sunday, January 23rd at 11:01AM EST (link)overwhelming hostility to the conservative position. It was shocking to me at the time–which is why I remember the event so clearly. It was a cruel outrage–but yet a big majority viewed the situation otherwise.
It is often the case that people who live in red states, who live in a culturally closed environment, who are exposed only to conservative opinion, draw conclusions that are extreme and counter-productive in a general election.
We don’t need to fight for KS or AL or TX in 2012, we need to fight for PA and OH and FL. To do this, we need to tone-down the rhetoric to appeal to a common denominator. That means focusing on what unites, not divides, us–fiscal issues. The rest–SC nominations, Dept. of Justice appointees–will follow. It’s political power that makes the difference, not inflammatory rhetoric.
you are proven right
edwyrd (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 3:47PM EST (link)today while at the gym, i saw exactly what you are warning against. sore conservatve groups are pulling out of CPAC this year because of gay and muslim sponsors. if we just dump the social conflicts, we would have a stronger coaition.
“but men are different, they propound mathmatical theorms in beleaguered cities, conduct metaphysical arguments in condemned cells, make jokes on scaffolds, discuss the last new poem while advancing to the walls of quebec and comb their hair at thermopylae. it is our nature!
—C.S Lewis, weight of glory
"Dump the social conflicts", you say?
lineholder (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 4:09PM EST (link)Can I ask you to be more specific as to exactly what you mean by that statement?
dump too strong
edwyrd (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 4:40PM EST (link)let me be more specific, and i tread on slippery rocks here, for i am not well informed about cpac or its current politics. but as writeblock asserts and the variuos cpac factions illuminate, we are a fragile coalition of divergent and diverse conservative concerns which, if we could rally beneath one banner, the fiscal conservative banner, we can continue to dominate elections. this is what i timidly agree with.
now you can whoop my ass for my timidity, i’ll take the whooping because i jumped into the deep end before i learnt ta’ swim an’all.
“but men are different, they propound mathmatical theorms in beleaguered cities, conduct metaphysical arguments in condemned cells, make jokes on scaffolds, discuss the last new poem while advancing to the walls of quebec and comb their hair at thermopylae. it is our nature!
—C.S Lewis, weight of glory
I wouldn't jump the gun
lineholder (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 4:51PM EST (link)on the whoop a**. That’s why I asked what you meant first.
There’s just one point I’ll try to make on this. When we start talking about candidates and evaluating to what extent a candidate has exhibited that they do have a moral conscience on social issues…social conservatives are likely to be extremely realistic on this issue, perhaps even more so that fiscal conservatives might be.
Asking it of us to just throw those kinds of factors out the window and not take them into consideration is like asking a fiscal conservatives to settle for a bleeding heart overly-compassionate social conservative who doesn’t have an ounce of prudence or vein of steel in their backbone when it comes to fiscal issues. How responsive would you be to that idea? Probably not interested at all.
There are points where fiscal and social conservatives can be in agreement, and that’s what we need to try to find at this point rather than saying that either group has to kow-tow to the other group or group has greater importance than the other group.
Not only no, but..
Bill S (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 4:59PM EST (link)hell no. Why don’t we just rally under the social conservative banner? Why does YOUR priority matter but not the social conservative one? Without values, fiscal issues are irrelevant.
And tell it to the 40+% of the GOP that strongly votes social issues. I think you’ll find the same position with them. Just like we did in 2000 when George Bush lost the popular vote and won the election by a hair, when many social conservatives sat it out because of a (mistaken) impression that he was a social moderate.
Screw that. The social conservatives are always the ones who take the fall (I’d be glad to provide you a laundry list of links of stories that emerged after the last 2 elections with similar crapola). The CPAC situation proves the damage that Grover Norquist and his lowly band of libertarians are doing. This has been triggered by precisely the kind of nonsense you are proposing here. There WAS no social conservative problem until Daniels, GOProud and the trucer contingent started with their idiocy.
No truces. No trucers. Social conservatives will not be silenced and they will not allow the GOP to strip social issues from the party platform. If that’s what you want, the Libertarian Party is right down the street. Knock yourself out.
“It’s such a fine line between stupid, and clever.” – David St. Hubbins
And Bill S, did you see who else is boycotting CPAC this year
Scope (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 6:09PM EST (link)Jim DeMint will not be attending, and, Jim Jordan, the newly elected chair of the Republican Study Committee, who replaced Mike Pence, is also boycotting CPAC this year. I say have at it to those that support the groups that are far from what the conservative party ever accepted, including one that I shall not name. In addition, Breitbart, for all his good work, is hosting a big bash for GOProud. The Ron Paul Libertarians all but took over the place last year, maybe not so much in numbers, but in their very loud obnoxious voices, you know will have an even bigger presence this year. I keep saying, watch out for the national group the Tea Party Patriots. Many many of the local groups were one time the Ron Paul Campaign 4 Liberty people. The C4L promised that they were going to take over the Republican party, and, unfortunately they are succeeding, as wolves in sheeps clothing.
GOProud is tiny
edwyrd (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 6:44PM EST (link)only 10,000 members. why on earth would they be allowed to chase off the heritage foundation sporting close to 1 million members? and with demint backing out, the choice is clear. my question is this; can’t GOProud be just a spearpoint designed to cleve the conservative voting block apart?
“but men are different, they propound mathmatical theorms in beleaguered cities, conduct metaphysical arguments in condemned cells, make jokes on scaffolds, discuss the last new poem while advancing to the walls of quebec and comb their hair at thermopylae. it is our nature!
—C.S Lewis, weight of glory
edwyrd, there is another point to consider
lineholder (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 7:55PM EST (link)and I’m referring to homsexuality as a movement rather than speaking about homsexuals as individuals….
The homosexual movement has proven that they will be proactive in implementing their viewpoint regarding sexual orientation into every aspect of our society, whether it be education, health care, military, employment, etc.
What’s more, they’ve been not only expecting but demanding that the federal government financially support this.
So when it comes to being fiscally responsible regarding spending cuts, they are probably willing to see that happen in every area BUT programs that support their own sexual viewpoint. That’s where their objectivity will end.
meanwhile
edwyrd (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 8:29PM EST (link)we are bending over backwards (definitely not forwards) to keep “liberal fiscal conservatives” in the “tent”, only to find we sold our souls to the devil, quite literally…
so when the FiCons agree with us, and join us in a voting block, we won’t turn them out ( how could we anyway?), but on the social issues we must stand our ground. therefore, clearly, CPAC, as a conservative representative body is dead. the spearpooint has hit its mark, the body is cleved
“but men are different, they propound mathmatical theorms in beleaguered cities, conduct metaphysical arguments in condemned cells, make jokes on scaffolds, discuss the last new poem while advancing to the walls of quebec and comb their hair at thermopylae. it is our nature!
—C.S Lewis, weight of glory
For the time being, yes. [nt]
lineholder (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 8:42PM EST (link)My priority matters...
writeblock Sunday, January 23rd at 8:48PM EST (link)because that’s where the Tea Party’s at and where the independents are at. It would be nice if it weren’t so–but it’s a fact and a stubborn reality that some social conservatives need to appreciate if they want to achieve power. They can go ahead and get surly and loud and be demanding–to other Republicans. But they won’t make any headway where it counts in a general election–in battleground states like PA and OH. This doesn’t mean we need to put our principles aside, it means we need to avoid frightening away independents. Magical thinking doesn’t win elections. Taking a cold hard look at the political landscape does–and the political landscape in places that count–the battleground states–is not fertile soil for social conservatives. They can win in those states–but only by running on other issues.
Everyone would agree McDonnell of VA is a strong social conservative. But that’s not what he emphasized when running for governor. He put fiscal conservatism first because he knew that’s what would win him the election. In the long run what does most for the unborn child is not venting angry rhetoric but achieving political power–and we’ll only get that if we nominate the strongest candidate for the general election, not the one who most meets with the our moral approval. This is because politics is not as neat as moralists would like but is generally pretty messy. By that I mean the big prize doesn’t necessarily go to the guy who’s most principled, it goes to the one who best appeals to political realities.
did reagan "drive" political reality?
edwyrd (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 9:20PM EST (link)can it be driven?
what are its mechanisms?
is it entirely the medias’ realm and estate?
at what point in the historical procession can a conservative ideal take hold and thrive?
i ask, because i am quite curious and i wonder if pragmatism is another name for lacking a vigorous ideal
“but men are different, they propound mathmatical theorms in beleaguered cities, conduct metaphysical arguments in condemned cells, make jokes on scaffolds, discuss the last new poem while advancing to the walls of quebec and comb their hair at thermopylae. it is our nature!
—C.S Lewis, weight of glory
Yes, imagine...
marcts Monday, January 24th at 8:51AM EST (link)even social conservatives were not, on the whole, interested in having Tom DeLay and Randall Terry butting into family matters that were already wrenching enough, and forcing the protagonists, their conflicts and decisions, into the spotlight and broadcasting them all over the world.
Yes, it’s a matter of killing babies–but ...
Locked and Loaded (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 5:13PM EST (link)Tells me all I need to know.
writeblock gets it
concap (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 5:35PM EST (link).
The Constitution is neither Right or Left, it is American.
You need neither be Right or Left to vote American.
When you vote on the Federal level based on politics, you are voting for a lobbyist to promote your own personal wants and force them on others through taxation and legislation.
FF/FS/SL/RMIL/OK
Fiscal Federal/Fiscal State/Social Local/Retired Military/Oath Keeper
intelligent politics
edwyrd (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 6:43PM EST (link)“politics is democracy in action”. forget who said it. and i would submit that the abortion issue is the point where our political opponents will stike hardest, it being the gap between our lines, so we need to put a few machinegun emplacements there (and what form would that take?) which is why we need this debate now, so wiser heads may prevail.
still it feel great to vent, and be amongst friends, on this day. but can i get just a few thunderous condemnations of the vile practice of abortion as birth control?
and maybe a promise to NOT fund it,
“but men are different, they propound mathmatical theorms in beleaguered cities, conduct metaphysical arguments in condemned cells, make jokes on scaffolds, discuss the last new poem while advancing to the walls of quebec and comb their hair at thermopylae. it is our nature!
—C.S Lewis, weight of glory
boehner makes barring abortion funding
edwyrd (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 7:28PM EST (link)highest priority. CNN politics page. HR3. bans government fiunding for abortion. don’t be so timid you guys. he is playing to the middle of the conservative coailition. we CAN get along! we are smart enough to know a good thing when it comes around ( nov2010 ). we will get it RIGHT, here, on the right. a toast, to all the different and varied dimensions and components of the conservative coalition, may we conduct a courageous and sucessfull war against the marxist cabal encamped in the legislatures and courts of our great nation.
“but men are different, they propound mathmatical theorms in beleaguered cities, conduct metaphysical arguments in condemned cells, make jokes on scaffolds, discuss the last new poem while advancing to the walls of quebec and comb their hair at thermopylae. it is our nature!
—C.S Lewis, weight of glory
Who is McCorvey?
concap (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 8:36PM EST (link)In August 1995, McCorvey announced that she had switched sides on the abortion debate. “I’m pro-life,” McCorvey stated. “I think I have always been pro-life, I just didn’t know it.” McCorvey’s reversal was attributed to her new friendship with the Reverend Philip (“Flip”) Benham, national director of the militant antiabortion group Operation Rescue. The group had moved its national headquarters into an office next to the clinic where McCorvey worked.
After being “””””””BAPTIZED”””””” by Benham, McCorvey declared that she would work on behalf of Operation Rescue.
McCorvey is Jane Roe of Roe v Wade.
Lets be honest, when was the last time any of you, myself included has gone fishing and stood on a street corner to witness and pass out tracts?
Rather than get out and do what is required of us as Christians, we have let the left infiltrate our lines and under the disguise of Conservatism, split the Nation.
Everyone keeps saying the Government never gets any thing right, yet here we are trying to use the government to force our personal views of abortion down the throats of the non believers, knowing dang well it will never work. Well, how long has this been going on?
They say “All politics are local“. Nothing is truer when it comes to this issue.
All you can do is pray and hopefully, when we get the power, Roe v Wade will be over turned.
Not through a ban on abortion, but through a constitutional amendment stating life begins at conception. Nothing more nothing less. All existing laws will take care of the rest.
Abortion, for or against is just a personal opinion.
The scientific fact that life begins at conception is just that. A fact.
Siding with the Fiscal First, will just have to be a leap of faith.
The Constitution is neither Right or Left, it is American.
You need neither be Right or Left to vote American.
When you vote on the Federal level based on politics, you are voting for a lobbyist to promote your own personal wants and force them on others through taxation and legislation.
FF/FS/SL/RMIL/OK
Fiscal Federal/Fiscal State/Social Local/Retired Military/Oath Keeper
McCorvey link
concap (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 8:39PM EST (link)Forgot link
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Roe_v_Wade.aspx
The Constitution is neither Right or Left, it is American.
You need neither be Right or Left to vote American.
When you vote on the Federal level based on politics, you are voting for a lobbyist to promote your own personal wants and force them on others through taxation and legislation.
FF/FS/SL/RMIL/OK
Fiscal Federal/Fiscal State/Social Local/Retired Military/Oath Keeper
The opposite is true
Menlo (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 8:35PM EST (link)Actually, “social” is the opposite of “personal.” It has to do with society. Every single thing related to law and policy is “social.” That’s where the term “social security” comes from, and it is indeed correctly a “social” issue. Regardless, equal and civil rights, particularly related to the right to life, is not personal.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
Are you
concap (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 9:05PM EST (link)Saying that the social issue of abortion has nothing to do with you, and personally you don‘t care one way or the other?
The Constitution is neither Right or Left, it is American.
You need neither be Right or Left to vote American.
When you vote on the Federal level based on politics, you are voting for a lobbyist to promote your own personal wants and force them on others through taxation and legislation.
FF/FS/SL/RMIL/OK
Fiscal Federal/Fiscal State/Social Local/Retired Military/Oath Keeper
No
Menlo (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 11:25PM EST (link)What I’m saying is that it does not directly impact me but that it impacts others in society, and that it is a fight for the rights of others.
Social has to do with society as opposed to the individual. Hence the prefix. Where do you think the terms “socialism” and “social security” come from? Social is the opposite of personal. Any legal or political proposal is inherently social and not personal because it affects or is intended to affect society.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
Fiscal is fiscal is fiscal is a failacy
Vaughn Harold (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 9:35PM EST (link)Fiscal decisions have social implications at which point fiscal conservatises, I’m sure, have many divergent opinions that will never allow them to come together peacably.
I really don’t understand why people believe that changing the government will change the people. This philosophy is always short lived and opens up factions within each politcal party to be manipulated by those that truely hold the power in this country.
You Sir, Are correct.
concap (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 10:04PM EST (link)You get it.
You stated above.
Fiscal decisions have social implications…..
Yes. Fiscal and social are joined at the root.
at which point fiscal conservatises, I’m sure, have many divergent opinions…..
Yes. And all are personal in nature
that will never allow them to come together peacably…..
Yes. That is why we must be Fiscal First.
You all so stated:
I really don’t understand why people believe that changing the government will change the people. This philosophy is always short lived and opens up factions within each politcal party to be manipulated by those that truely hold the power in this country.
Not that it matters to me, personally, but
Are you even an American?
The Constitution is neither Right or Left, it is American.
You need neither be Right or Left to vote American.
When you vote on the Federal level based on politics, you are voting for a lobbyist to promote your own personal wants and force them on others through taxation and legislation.
FF/FS/SL/RMIL/OK
Fiscal Federal/Fiscal State/Social Local/Retired Military/Oath Keeper
Wrong, you can't have a fiscal conservative state in a socially liberal state.
Vaughn Harold (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 12:43PM EST (link)Oil and Water.
The problem with your reasoning is that you can’t break conservatism up into factions as listed in your bio. If fiscal conservatism is right then social conservatism is right which means that fiscal conservatism can not work apart from social conservatism.
The problem is a socially liberal state, and until that changes you can forget about a fiscally conservative state.
And yes I am an American who gets it.
In fact, social conservatism is the more critical issue
ssshannon1026 (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 2:03PM EST (link)If anything, being socially and morally bankrupt is a far greater threat to our society than being fiscally bankrupt is. A socially stable society can always weather economic downturns. But regardless of how financially secure a society is, if it has no social conscience, no grassroots moral parameters defined and maintained by the people themselves acting at the local and state level of government, than it is a doomed society. Nothing could be more obvious.
The ‘I’m fiscally conservative and socially liberal’ crowd needs to be shouted down and rejected from the ranks of true conservatives.
Not true.
writeblock Sunday, January 23rd at 2:15PM EST (link)Right now we’re on the verge of becoming a socialist state. If that happens, forget about your freedoms–or your social preferences. The vast dependencies created by such a condition will far outweigh your social conservatism.
The idea that being morally bankrupt is a threat to society is precisely why smaller government should have priority over everything else. Big government, run by morally bankrupt people, would destroy our nation. Think about it.
writeblock, what causes you to think
lineholder (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 2:26PM EST (link)that a small morally bankrupt government can’t spend every bit as much money if not more than a big government would and could?
Both the fiscal and the social have their own part to play. This whole idea of putting one over the other is getting…well, redundant.
By definition...
writeblock Sunday, January 23rd at 8:23PM EST (link)small government would mean less spending and less power.
Oh, so you do include the moral imperatives
lineholder (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 8:27PM EST (link)of spending money wisely and resisting temptation regarding any misuse/abuse of authority?
That’s what it will take to spend less and have less power.
I think where we disagee is how small of a
Vaughn Harold (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 3:01PM EST (link)government each of us wants. I want a constitutional government, you’re ok with New York City.
A constitutional government can not exist within a social liberal people. This is a fact. Restraining spending is wonderful, but it doesn’t solve the heart of the issue.
No
Menlo (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 3:34PM EST (link)I’d choose a socialist state without much economic freedom if it was the only one to provide equal justice and the most basic of human rights. I believe that paints a false choice, but that’s where I stand. It’s the same rationale by which I’d defend an embargo on China.
Your use of the phrase “your social preferences” shows a lack of understanding on your part.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
To even
concap (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 9:11PM EST (link)project the thought of choosing Socialism, can only mean one of two things:
1. Either you are a Socialist.
Or
2. You have absolutely know idea what you are talking about.
Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/socialism.html
The Constitution is neither Right or Left, it is American.
You need neither be Right or Left to vote American.
When you vote on the Federal level based on politics, you are voting for a lobbyist to promote your own personal wants and force them on others through taxation and legislation.
FF/FS/SL/RMIL/OK
Fiscal Federal/Fiscal State/Social Local/Retired Military/Oath Keeper
You prefer anarchy?
Menlo (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 12:16AM EST (link)Certain rights need to be protected. There are some things that matter more than money and economic growth.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
I’m a Constitutionalist.
concap (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 12:46AM EST (link)I believe the Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States.
Their for, I am not an anarchist, nor do I promote anarchy.
The Constitution is neither Right or Left, it is American.
You need neither be Right or Left to vote American.
When you vote on the Federal level based on politics, you are voting for a lobbyist to promote your own personal wants and force them on others through taxation and legislation.
FF/FS/SL/RMIL/OK
Fiscal Federal/Fiscal State/Social Local/Retired Military/Oath Keeper
Then you're long lost.
Menlo (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 1:49AM EST (link)The Constitution ceased to be the de facto law long ago, and it never will.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
And social decay
ssshannon1026 (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 7:46PM EST (link)Is the primary means the socialists have used to undermine our society. Besides, soical conservatism is an element of small government, not an alternative to it. Small government exists primarily to be where the principles of a moral society are best exercised. Social conservatives are not trying to impose morality through the federal government, they are merely trying to prevent the federal government’s continueing assaults on the social and moral values of the people.
Social conservatives...
writeblock Sunday, January 23rd at 10:39PM EST (link)are the least unbending of Republicans. My fear is that they will continue to oppose those in the GOP they deem too impure, regardless of their political strengths–and thereby assure Obama another four years. I’m firmly convinced we lost the last election due to Dr. Dobson and his followers–as well as an antiquated primary system that shuts out people from the really important battleground states in favor of small unimportant states that favor their kind of guys. That’s a recipe for political disaster in 2012.
You are absolutely wrong, social conservatives
Vaughn Harold (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 7:13PM EST (link)did not vote for Obama my friend, it was social liberals! I for one hated John McCain, but still voted for him even though he blew the election himself by signing onto the TARP bill.
The vast majority of both
aesthete (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 7:33PM EST (link)social conservatives and fiscal conservatives voted against Obama.
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
Very true, I wish fiscal conservatives would
Vaughn Harold (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 9:47PM EST (link)realize that social conservatives are not their enemy, but are actually on the same team “conservatism”. Unfortunately most fiscal conservatives love to be fiscal, but socially want to be liberal.
The problem with the fiscal conservatism first motto is that when spending is cut the people get outraged demanding that the government fix the problems, thus handing power back to the social liberal party “Democrates”.
Until the people of this country become conservative in the real sense, both socially and fiscally we may win some battles, but we can not win the war, history tells us so.
huge amen Vaughn - nt
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 10:10PM EST (link)Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Thanks GC - nt
Vaughn Harold (Diary) Tuesday, January 25th at 7:21PM EST (link)But the two can co-exist.
writeblock Sunday, January 23rd at 2:10PM EST (link)It’s what Christie has learned from Giuliani. Rudy succeeded where others before him couldn’t–because he was a fiscal conservative.
You know your post is an exercise in making excuses.
antisocial (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 11:39PM EST (link)For the lack of moral and courage. It is an outrage a baby with a pumping heart can be killed.
Say what you will about political coalitions etc…. Life is too precious. If we can’t value life what can we value?
PS: What makes you think your life is more precious than a baby’s? Or for that matter anybody’s.
Obama Doctrine – Boot On The Throat
—————————–
What is to be done?
——————————
No. You can’t – Moe Lane
——————————
The Emperor has no clothes!!!
Do you want to express moral outrage...
writeblock Sunday, January 23rd at 2:27PM EST (link)and lose elections? Or do you want to win elections and save the babies? Choose. If you want to save the babies by winning elections, tone it down. Not everybody in America feels your moral outrage. Sad, but still a fact. Magical thinking won’t change that fact–it’ll only lose you elections and give the opposition more power to do exactly what you most abhor.
I can't support a candidate or organization that is not pro life
antisocial (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 3:06PM EST (link)I’d rather lose an election than compromise on life.
Obama Doctrine – Boot On The Throat
—————————–
What is to be done?
——————————
No. You can’t – Moe Lane
——————————
The Emperor has no clothes!!!
That's just plain foolish...
writeblock Sunday, January 23rd at 9:03PM EST (link)since losing elections would mean granting power to the opposition–who will go on killing more and more babies. The only way to stop this vicious cycle is to elect strong candidates who win elections and to accept the fact that they may not always be the perfect candidate. In my book as long as they nominate conservative SC justices, I’m fine with any GOP candidate. I don’t give a damn what his or her private life is like or how many spouses he or she has had or any other irrelevant “moral” factor. I only want him/her to win and gain power. That’s my top priority–because I know the rest will follow.
I am not fine with any GOP candidate.
antisocial (Diary) Tuesday, January 25th at 12:34AM EST (link)I don’t want Republican masters instead of Democrat masters. I will back conservative Republicans. You are spinning. I am not looking for perfect candidate. I am looking for a pro life candidate. At the very least I am looking for a candidate who is opposed to Federal Funding of abortions. Once a heart is beating I can’t accept that the human being be killed.
Unless Mother’s life is at risk or exceptional circumstances are involved (incest, rape etc..) I don’t think anyone should be allowed to abort. It should be a crime.
If you don’t want babies please do something about it before you conceive.
Hey one quick note…. What is a strong candidate to you? Would you vote for a rapist if he is fiscally conservative? Or a child molester? What if this fellow had 100% chance of getting elected?
Obama Doctrine – Boot On The Throat
—————————–
What is to be done?
——————————
No. You can’t – Moe Lane
——————————
The Emperor has no clothes!!!
Your argument is getting boring
powertothepeople (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 8:12PM EST (link)And is utter nonsense. It is sort of along the lines of this:
How about we did not go to war in WW2 because it was going to be tough and we may have lost. And not everyone was in favor of going to war.
How about we not scour the country for those who hurt our children because we may not find them and it is too hard. And not everyone thinks having sex with small children is wrong…
How about we not confront Obama on his abysmal fiscal policies because he will veto any effort and not everyone in the country dislike his policies. Oh, and it is hard work.
How about we not nominate a conservative to run for president since we may not win, it will be hard work, and not everyone would like it.
The nonsense you spew day after day in here has gone way past moronic. You lost nearly all your credibility on this site with your incessant nonsense about Rudy (I cant win a dog catcher election) and this constant crap from you that we should shut up and not be vocal about our firm beliefs has stripped what little credibility you may have had left and has relegated you to a fools status.
We do not need you of all people lecturing us on how we should speak, vet a candidate, how we should or should not stand up for what we believe, and most of all, going on your constant nonsense about Rudy being the only one who could win and how he got robbed in 2008, we more than assuredly do not need you telling us how to be political. Taking advice from you would be like taking driving lessons from the blind.
Just the opposite is true.
writeblock Sunday, January 23rd at 9:18PM EST (link)The really moronic thinking is yours–since it defies political reality. People like you are long on moral outrage and short on political insight.
The fact is the Tea Party is not that interested in social conservatism. That is just reality. I didn’t make it up–it’s what is out there. Not only that, but a great part of the Tea Party is comprised of independents. It’s the independents who abandoned the Democrats in droves and helped create the wave in 2010. And they’re just not all that interested in social issues.
Add to this fact the reality that the next election will be about who wins the independent vote–and you can see how reasonable it is to tone-down the social issues and play up the fiscal issues. I didn’t create this scenario–that’s just the way it is. You may not like it–but so what? It’s still the way it is.
What are you talking about?
powertothepeople (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 9:48PM EST (link)“The really moronic thinking is yours–since it defies political reality. People like you are long on moral outrage and short on political insight.”
Are you on crack? This comment made no sense at all. Are you telling me that everything you believe in and feel is important in a candidate is mainstream and would not have any detractors? I really hope you make a stupid reply to this question so your nonsense can be exposed. So please tell me that all your feel important about a candidate will not cause a soul to take issue.
“The fact is the Tea Party is not that interested in social conservatism. That is just reality”
First, your reality is one most drug makers would love to bottle, so lets not talk reality here. Number two, did I say a dog gone thing about the tea party or that I could care less about their agenda/beliefs? And three, ignorance may be bliss, but yours is not. Please stop with the ignorant assumptions that the tea party and all its members have no interest in social issues, that the same issues are not important to them, or that they do not push candidates who believe the same way.I really again hope you make an ignorant comment about this so I can bring up quite a few of the candidates they pushed for, the beliefs they espoused, and how the tea parties that were pushing them highlighted the social views of the candidate. So please, answer in your nonsensical way.
And last but not least, “Add to this fact the reality that the next election will be about who wins the independent vote,” you are such a brilliant boy. Are you trying to say on record, that a vast majority of independents do not care about social issues, that social issues are not very important to them, and that they will not vote for a person who puts social issues at the forefront of their campaign and life. God, I really hope you answer this one…….
As I stated above, you are the last one anyone needs to take political advice from. The nonsense you spew day after day in here is absurd, and you are the political equivalent to a blind driving instructor.
Try thinking about what I really said.
writeblock Sunday, January 23rd at 11:54PM EST (link)I wasn’t talking about what I believe or feel. I was talking about political realities such as the fact that the Tea Party is comprised primarily of fiscal conservatives. That’s just a fact. It’s also a fact that the wave election of 2010 was decisive in our favor because we won the independent voter–who was interested primarily in fiscally responsible government and smaller government. Those are simply facts, not what I think or feel. They simply are the political reality out there.
Nor did I make the preposterous statement you claim I made– that ALL the members of the Tea Party are uninterested in social issues. That would be ridiculous. The movement is comprised of millions of individuals. How can anyone claim none of them are interested in social issues. That’s absurd. But at the same time no one with any knowledge about politics would argue that the Tea Party was not interested above all in fiscal matters and Constitutional containment of government. Nowhere do we find much emphasis on much else–certainly not on pro-life matters. That’s a fact–not just what I think.
Finally, I stand what I actually said. I said McDonnell won in VA by emphasizing fiscal conservatism, not social conservatism and that that was the way for the GOP to go. I also said it was what unites most Americans whereas social issues divide them. I also said that in battleground states–which are the most important states in any general election–the social issues would indeed handicap any candidate who made them his or her top priority. You may not like that fact–but it’s still a fact.
Simple answers for moronic statements
powertothepeople (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 5:29PM EST (link)And this will be the last time I waste a moment of my very valuable time on a person like you.
“I wasn’t talking about what I believe or feel. I was talking about political realities such as the fact that the Tea Party is comprised primarily of fiscal conservatives. That’s just a fact.”
You know facts as well as you know how Rudy would have “won” in 2008. Please stop talking out your ass and show us proof the tea party is made up primarily of fiscal conservatives. You keep spewing the same nonsense day after day after day, and yet you are still wrong. Hence why what you type is called moronic nonsense.
“It’s also a fact that the wave election of 2010 was decisive in our favor because we won the independent voter–who was interested primarily in fiscally responsible government and smaller government. Those are simply facts, not what I think or feel.”
Aren’t you just a clever little ( —–) put any name in here. independents are just as involved in social issues as any other group. While they were very interested in stopping the Obama nonsense, they were and are still very concerned about social ills such as abortion, gay marriage, etc. Independent voters voted overwhelmingly for keeping gay marriage out of numerous states including CA. This is not showing that you nonsense about independents hating pols that push social issues is true in the least. So again, this is why you are a (——) who espouses moronic nonsense.
“But at the same time no one with any knowledge about politics would argue that the Tea Party was not interested above all in fiscal matters and Constitutional containment of government. Nowhere do we find much emphasis on much else–certainly not on pro-life matters.”
Again, your are showing us all you suffer from head in ass syndrome. Tea Party members across this country brought signs to rallies that spoke loudly about social issues, signed social issue petitions, supported candidates who were vocally strong about social issues and even supported them above other conservatives who did not speak about social issues, and even raised their voices about social issues to anyone who would listen. Again, you state nonsense then throw the word fact in thinking we will buy it. Only thing we buy is you are a (——) who spews moronic nonsense.
‘Finally, I stand what I actually said. I said McDonnell won in VA by emphasizing fiscal conservatism, not social conservatism and that that was the way for the GOP to go.”
Oh jolly gee whiz buttons and flowers, you found one who was not a strong social conservative who won with Tea Party Support. I match you one with Rand Paul and up it with one more, Marco Rubio. Do you need some more or will you finally shut that worthless hole in your face that spews nothing but moronic nonsense. Doubt it, the moment you started harping on Rudy, we all knew you were a (—–) whose mind contained nothing but moronic nonsense.
‘I also said it was what unites most Americans whereas social issues divide them. I also said that in battleground states–which are the most important states in any general election–the social issues would indeed handicap any candidate who made them his or her top priority. ”
This was just about the dumbest thing you have said to date, other than your Rudy nonsense. I am starting to wonder if your IQ is high enough for you to live on your own, but that is another topic all together, SO let me get this straight, are you saying all republicans or even a vast majority always agree on all fiscal issues? Are you saying fiscal ideas never cause any division? Please tell me you are not that moronic….. Who decided what fiscal issues are the best and the ones we should follow, DeMint, Romney, Huck, Newt, Rudy? And are you saying there are no God fearing people in Battleground states who hold social issues dear to their hearts and focus in on those issues each and every day? And are you saying that the good people in battleground states are so stupid that if a candidate raises social issues or takes a strong stance on some, they will vote for Obama? I hope you just allowed your moronic tendencies to overload your pen, but I think you meant it and I am sure the many battleground residents who blog here day after day may take issue with your BS.
Dude, you are hands down the most moronic poster on this site and that is saying a ton since I am not the most intelligent one here. You do not know a tenth of what you think you know and what little you do know is wrong. An old proverb says this,
“How long, you simple ones, will you love simplicity, and fools hate knowledge? The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that listen to counsel is wise.”
Sometimes a fool does not know he is a fool. Maybe you should self examine and then you may listen more than you mouth off.
We get it, you love state-sanctioned mass infanticide
Neil Stevens (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 9:53PM EST (link)But we don’t, so suck it up.
RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules
Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.
“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder
I prefaced all this by saying I was pro-life...
writeblock Monday, January 24th at 12:11AM EST (link)and always have been. Your response proves better than anything I’ve said how intolerant some of you are towards anyone who doesn’t share your self-defeating political perspective. You assume anyone who argues for a better political strategy by subordinating social issues until power is actually achieved–is supportive of infanticide. This is usually how things shake out with your kind of conservatism. Sooner or later somebody like you shows up to prove the point you’d rather lose elections than use common sense. Unfortunately I happen to be right–and you happen to be wrong–not that that will help the GOP in the next election since Republicans like you will manage to botch things up all over again. The sad thing is you’ll once again find out too late how dumb you’ve been politically–after you’ve managed to give Obama another four years–which should be just about enough time for him to finish the job of destroying this country. –On second thought, I doubt you’d learn your lesson even then. You say you want to save babies–only you’re careless and foolish about winning elections. In fact you’d rather lose than give an inch. So who’s really helping to kill the unborn–me who wants to win or you who don’t seem to give a damn so long as you can ventilate and feel morally superior?
Get over yourself, writeblock
lineholder (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 12:14AM EST (link)That’s enough. Stop now while you’re ahead.
I don't like people suggesting...
writeblock Monday, January 24th at 12:35AM EST (link)I support infanticide. That’s over the line.
What day is this? What is the title of this diary?
lineholder (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 12:37AM EST (link)Do you really believe that on this day in this particular diary you can take the approach you have and not have people get upset over it?
You strongly support Rudy.
gekster (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 12:42AM EST (link)nuff said.
They say Republicans are for the rich, Democrats are for the poor.
If they need more voters,
then they have to make more of who they are for.
We are there in the various Tea Party groups, leaderless, but not rudderless.
We steer always toward the Constitutional principles this nation was founded upon.
Erick Brockway
Ok folks, 2012 is here. Get involved
The fact is..
Bill S (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 9:58PM EST (link)you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.
http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2010/10/05/new-poll-major-crossover-between-tea-party-and-conservative-christians.aspx
“It’s such a fine line between stupid, and clever.” – David St. Hubbins
actually you are wrong
Doc Holliday (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 9:58PM EST (link)the Tea Party was about people who saw the Constitution and the American way of life eroding.
Molon Labe!
5; VERY well said, writeblock. It's imperative to win in 2012...and that means we have to win with the electorate we have.
smagar (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 10:23AM EST (link)In 2008, it was painfully clear, to anyone that was listening or cared to listen, that electing Barack Obama would be horrible for the pro-life cause. Strong voices in the Catholic Church—Chaput in Denver, Righazzi (sp?) in Philadelphia—-spoke out about the need for Catholics—a religion that is outspokenly pro-life— to consider pro-life issues when they voted that November.
Result: A majority of the Catholic vote went for…Barack Obama.
At the same time, voters elected a veto-proof Democratic Senate, making it that much easier for Obama and Pat Leahy to pack the federal bench with pro-choice Justices. Pro-life Louisiana reelected Mary Landrieu. Pro-life Arkansas reelected Mark Pryor. Colorado, home of Focus on the Family, elected its second Democratic Senator. Even if those Senators weren’t pro-choice zealots individual, everyone knew they’d appoint Dem Senators to Judiciary—-Leahy, Schumer, Durbin IIRC—who were.
In 2012, it’s important to win. If Obama keeps the Presidency, Obamacare will most likely endure until at least 2017—and it may be too late, then.
To be fair, this post from the Directors doesn’t declare war upon a GOP pro-choice POTUS candidate like Giuliani or Senate candidate like Scott Brown. From what I’m reading, it says that Redstate will not endorse a pro-choice candidate or permit pro-choice Republicans to write on its front page. To be sure, that limits Redstate’s ability to be a “big tent” of conservative thought….but I don’t think Redstate CARES to be a big tent. Nothing wrong with that…smaller, more disciplined and more focused organizations often have more power than larger, less focused ones.
Also, I don’t think that Redstate will go so far as to sabotage the best GOP candidate for critical races. (I’m assuming here that any pro-choice GOP candidate would behave like a Giuliani, instead of a Kate Michaelman-like abortion zealot). If the White House or Senate were really in the balance, I can’t imagine that Redstate would knowingly torpedo the GOP’s best chance to unseat Obama or take back the Senate.
There is much at stake in 2012; rest assured that everyone knows that.
“Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?” (Macaulay)
The Catholic pro-life bishops...
writeblock Sunday, January 23rd at 2:21PM EST (link)are foolish when it comes to politics. Look how they backed Stupak’s pro-life amendment when the health bill came up in the House. What that actually did was allow the bill to survive in the House instead of being killed outright. When it got to the Senate, the amendment was easily erased–and the Senate bill was accepted by the House. So the bishops lost big time–because of political obtuseness. Politics is not for amateurs.
writeblock
runner12 (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 3:30PM EST (link)With all due respect, social issues and fiscal issues can be fought at the same time. We do not have to place on before the other. The point that you are missing is that many social conservatives oppose Roe not only on moral grounds but on the belief that it was a gross overreach of the federal government. While not all Americans agree on my pro-life stance, many would support an effort to return these decisions to the states.
Secondly, please name me one social liberal who is both fiscally conservative AND for limited government? I really can’t think of one major prominent figure. I am sure there are individuals who fall into this category, but not politicians. For example, Christie may be fiscally conservative, but he is not for limited government. The same could be said for Guiliiani.
But I digress, this post was about mourning the rampant killing of unborn babies in this country and encouraging us to continue to push for the elimination of abortion. I for one am committted to that cause, are you?
No they can't...
writeblock Sunday, January 23rd at 9:26PM EST (link)since social issues tend to drive away the independent vote. What’s the point of undermining our strength? We don’t need to abandon our principles, just tone it down and not scare away those who would otherwise vote with us.
Some of you don’t appreciate how you appear to a lot of independents. You rile them up. You seem to them intolerant and narrow-minded. They don’t share your religiosity or your Christian perspective. They may be pro-life, but not passionately so. Some of us scare them. Others of us anger them.
The problem is pro-life is a passion-arousing issue. It stirs up intense feelings and arouses anger. What we need above all is quiet agreement to oust Obama–based on his fiscal irresponsibility and socialist agenda. We need to keep cool to win. We need to think strategically, not moralistically.
Correction...
writeblock Sunday, January 23rd at 9:30PM EST (link)I don’t mean to imply independents aren’t Christian or religious. Most probably are for all I know. But according to polls they’re not interested in social issues. That’s all I meant to suggest.
writeblock, I think you overstate the offense
runner12 (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 10:15PM EST (link)that independents have towards this issue. The polls show that most people in America do not approve of abortion and are by most definitions, pro-life. I also believe that very few would have an issue with overturning Roe and returning this decision to the states.
Also, I can argue the abortion issue from a completely secular and scientific perspective, if that is more palatable to some. Quite frankly, I find your comments a little condescending. I am quite aware that there are people who do not share my viewpoint nor my faith.
I know that when I discuss the issue of abortion with such people, my arguments must stem from more of a secular point of view. However, people need not be Christians to believe that abortion is wrong. Give the American people more credit than that. When presented with the lies of the pro-choice movement, I am confident that we can change hearts and minds.
BTW, you did not answer my question. Name one prominent politician who is socially liberal, but a fiscal conservative who believes in limited government.
writeblock is right.
concap (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 11:21PM EST (link)I’m posting this in the hopes it helps lessen the anxiety some may feel to the thought of toning down their political beliefs when it comes to abortion. Remember, when it comes right down to it, abortion is a moral issue, not political.
Take it to the corner. You will still be furthering the cause and this will help ease things over time.
In August 1995, McCorvey announced that she had switched sides on the abortion debate. “I’m pro-life,” McCorvey stated. “I think I have always been pro-life, I just didn’t know it.” McCorvey’s reversal was attributed to her new friendship with the Reverend Philip (“Flip”) Benham, national director of the militant antiabortion group Operation Rescue. The group had moved its national headquarters into an office next to the clinic where McCorvey worked.
After being “””””””baptized”””””” by Benham, McCorvey declared that she would work on behalf of Operation Rescue.
McCorvey is Jane Roe of Roe v Wade.
Had someone caught her on a corner before she needed the abortion, we would not be having this exchange.
Lets be honest, when was the last time any of you, myself included has gone fishing and stood on a street corner to witness and pass out tracts?
Rather than get out and do what is required of us as Christians, we have let the left infiltrate our lines and under the disguise of Conservatism, split the Nations politics with a moral issue.
Everyone keeps saying the Government never gets any thing right, yet here we are trying to use the government to force our personal views of abortion down the throats of the non believers, knowing dang well it will never work. Well, how long has this been going on?
They say “All politics are local“. Nothing is truer when it comes to this issue.
All you can do is pray and witness. The more there are of us, the less there will be of them.
Siding on the side Fiscal First, not instead of, will just have to be a leap of faith.
The Constitution is neither Right or Left, it is American.
You need neither be Right or Left to vote American.
When you vote on the Federal level based on politics, you are voting for a lobbyist to promote your own personal wants and force them on others through taxation and legislation.
FF/FS/SL/RMIL/OK
Fiscal Federal/Fiscal State/Social Local/Retired Military/Oath Keeper
Abortion is not about WHO is right or wrong...it's about WHAT is right or wrong.
lineholder (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 11:36PM EST (link)I’m usually long on patience, but right now I can’t believe that you and writeblock are still trying to approach this with the idea of who is right rather than what is right.
Keep on approaching it this way, and you’ll probably get a good dose of what stubborn truly is, because what you’ve seen here only scratches the surface, concap.
Come on now.
concap (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 11:59PM EST (link)I don’t know him/her from you. We are not a team. He/she has his/her point of view and I have mine.
I just happen to agree with him/her on some points.
The Constitution is neither Right or Left, it is American.
You need neither be Right or Left to vote American.
When you vote on the Federal level based on politics, you are voting for a lobbyist to promote your own personal wants and force them on others through taxation and legislation.
FF/FS/SL/RMIL/OK
Fiscal Federal/Fiscal State/Social Local/Retired Military/Oath Keeper
Wrong day, wrong context, wrong time, wrong approach. [nt]
lineholder (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 12:02AM EST (link)Don't put words in my mouth.
writeblock Monday, January 24th at 12:17AM EST (link)I know what’s right and what’s wrong. But that’s not the issue. It does no good to be right and lose elections. Ultimately it comes down to how to win and how not to lose. You win by appealing to more voters than the opposition. You do this by talking about what they want to hear–and they want to hear how you’re going to solve the economy and limit government, not about abortion.
You need to stop NOW, writeblock.
lineholder (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 12:23AM EST (link)You are NOT doing anything to help your cause by approaching it this way.
Why can't you or writeblock argue my points?
runner12 (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 6:49PM EST (link)You cannot answer my questions nor refute any of my points. All you do is the equivalent of trying to “shout” down someone.
Let me repeat myself. You CAN argue against the abortion from different angles. Most people WOULD support restoring this decision to the states. Not one of you has named a prominent politician who is socially liberal , but is a fiscal conservative and for limited government. You know why? Because there aren’t any! There may be individuals who believe this way, but not one current politician.
Your assertion is simply false and overstated that this issue “scares” people away. But I have wasted enough time with your foolish and illogical arguments.
I request a new rule directors
jerry39 (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 5:49PM EST (link)That your gone if you wanna pick a “Conservatives should throw babies under the bus” fight on the anniversary of Row v. Wade. Seriously, why am I on a bus to D.C. away from my wife and my younger children, and the NFL playoffs so that I can read such a great post get attacked by idiots.
When you post these attacks on this weekend, I see it as nothing but intentional provocation, under the ironic premise of avoiding conflict that you blame on pro lifers. It sickens me as you slobber all over the pro-life position as if you are pro life, but just smarter about it than us hillbillies clinging to our religion. And again, I am happy to respectectfullly engage these issues, but when you do it on the anniversary or Roe, you are shouting your disrespect from the hilltops and do not deserve mine.
If you are an ardent pro abortion consevative, who simply can’t abide a pro life candidate, then come out and say so. don’t throw up the old straw man of the otherwise conservative but pro abortion independent that only lives in squish fairy tales. But I never hear this on redstate, its always the “I swear I’m pro-life…. but” crowd causing the very conflict they propose ti eliminate if we would only shut up for four more years.
Well were not shutting up, and when you come around on this day to peddle this cheap excuse for reason, I think your intent to create conflict and disrespect is sufficiently demonstrated.
jerry- Your point is well received by the majority here
Scope (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 6:26PM EST (link)and just so you know, we all appreciate your going the miles for our cause against the butchering against innocent lives. I know that you know that writeblock is so married to Guliani that he can’t help himself. He claims to be pro-life, but, supports a pro-choice candidate. He’s trying to say that you can be just a little pregnant. Look at all of the comments that are in your position, and on your side, and, ignore those that have to find excuses for their loser candidates. He’s grasping at straws. You are grasping at life for the innocent. You will win out in the end.
thanks, scope
jerry39 (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 7:32PM EST (link)And of course Rudi is the prime example of a squish on many levels, he was great on defense, and crime fighting. but horrible on gun rights, cap and trade, immigration, and a few others I have forgotten. its not like you could just say lets forget about abortion this time for the sake of having a great conservative otherwise. He was the worst of the lot even setting abortion aside. Well maybe Mccain would take absolute worst not considering abortion.
To say we would have won with Rudi is basically to say we would have won with Mccain. The losing argument that just keeps coming back no matter how many times it fails. Worse than keynesian economics
Absolutely wrong.
ssshannon1026 (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 7:54PM EST (link)There has never been a better time to unite behind an overtly conservative social agenda. What do we gain by winning the fiscal battle? A return to the status quo, thats what. THe lines are clearly drawn, and for us to be shy about social conseravitsm would doom our society to more of the very social progressive agenda that is what is really destroying it. We should boldly assert all facets of conservatism.
If we lose, we simply redouble our efforts. Let the left become ever more bold in their own agenda. The more quickly they implement it, the sooner it fails. We will ultimately win, and when we do the victory will be complete, not partial or compromised. There is no reason to fear social conservatism.
What you want is impossible...
writeblock Sunday, January 23rd at 9:54PM EST (link)since America is comprised of millions upon millions of people who don’t agree with you and who have real political power sufficient to oppose you. The only way to fight them is to win elections–and right now we simply can’t win elections by focusing on abortion. That’s simply not what the vast majority of Americans are interested in thinking about right now. You may not like that–but you need to accommodate to reality, not expect reality to accommodate to you. That doesn’t mean letting go of your principles but it does mean learning to deal with them more adroitly in the political arena.
Are you really!!!!
concap (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 9:58PM EST (link)advocating the notion
We must kill ourselves to save ourselves.
There has to be a word for people like you, but I can’t come up with it right now.
Can someone help me out on this?
The Constitution is neither Right or Left, it is American.
You need neither be Right or Left to vote American.
When you vote on the Federal level based on politics, you are voting for a lobbyist to promote your own personal wants and force them on others through taxation and legislation.
FF/FS/SL/RMIL/OK
Fiscal Federal/Fiscal State/Social Local/Retired Military/Oath Keeper
Don't get dramatic.
writeblock Monday, January 24th at 12:23AM EST (link)I’m suggesting something reasonable–if you’re amenable to reason. Your goal is to limit or stop abortions. It can only be achieved one way–by achieving political power. The way to political power is by doing what is necessary to attract voters–and you do this by talking about what interests them most. It might not be what interests YOU most–but it’s what will save the most babies in the long run. Once you achieve power, you get to nominate the right justices and you get to populate the federal bureaucracies. THAT’S how you save the unborn–not by bringing up issues the majority doesn’t want to discuss at this point. You may not find this very appealing–but it’s how you win.
thats not what you said
jerry39 (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 4:51PM EST (link)That’s a bait and switch. You are advocating pro choice candidates, your fav is Rudi so don’t pretend its all about a secret prolife strategy. And since most of the prolife crowd has been hammering the fiscal/size of government issues for the last year or so, the majority of dissension is coming from people like you telling us not to focus on what we haven’t been focusing in anyway. If you were prolife you would just shut up and support a prolife candidate.
Sorry, concap...
writeblock Monday, January 24th at 12:27AM EST (link)my last post was meant for ssshannon…Mea culpa. I’m getting sleepy and making mistakes. So I’ll sign off for now.
did reagan "drive" political reality?
edwyrd (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 10:33PM EST (link)did reagan “drive” political reality?
edwyrd Monday, January 24th at 9:20PM EST (link)
can it be driven?
what are its mechanisms?
is it entirely the medias’ realm and estate?
at what point in the historical procession can a conservative ideal take hold and thrive?
i ask, because i am quite curious and i wonder if pragmatism is another name for lacking a vigorous ideal
“but men are different, they propound mathmatical theorms in beleaguered cities, conduct metaphysical arguments in condemned cells, make jokes on scaffolds, discuss the last new poem while advancing to the walls of quebec and comb their hair at thermopylae. it is our nature!
—C.S Lewis, weight of glory
I agree.
kestrel (Diary) Tuesday, January 25th at 3:07PM EST (link)I am out of my league as a writer at RS, but I have actually thought about trying to write a “Daniels for Pres” diary. He was my second choice behind Palin, but two things have made me rethink Palin: 1. getting a better understanding of the financial cliff upon which we teeter, a problem that I think Daniels is uniquely prepared to solve, and, 2. seeing Palin’s video statement after the Roll/Giffords shooting (It might have been a good statement, but a teleprompter is the wrong medium for her. I’d never seen that before). While Palin is as much a top tier executive as Rick Perry and others (Daniels is one of a kind, imo), this fact has necessarily been eclipsed in the last 1 and 1/2 years as Mrs. Palin willingly sacrificed herself (as any serious Christian woman would) to informally lead and sustain the grassroots momentum. She can still switch gears and recover, but not in time to successfully run for pres in 2012, imo. Daniels 2012 and 22728AG4116. Thinking about Daniels’ statement on the Mexico City Policy, which was something like, of funding third world abortions: “It’s one more thing we don’t have money for” — this started me wishing he would run on “devolving power to the people” because instead of endlessly taxing us to repair the damage done by a 30-year spending spree, Daniels would mostly cut spending and let us keep more of our money to use as we see fit. (I’m thinking partly now of Glenn Beck’s comparison in his book between private business/charities’ post-Katrina spending and FEMA’s. A sad contrast. I don’t watch TV. The technology’s too complicated now, or at least, such is my impression.) The idea of devolving power to the people would apply in many areas under someone like Daniels (or Rudy actually. I did not know of Rudy’s commitment to constitutional jurisprudence, or else I didn’t believe it if I heard it. Note: The obfuscating role of the media in past elections cannot be overstated. Lately, I have actually thought of Rudy for SOS more than once. The world has never before been so much in need of an American Andropov. [I predict that bald is going to be big, big, big.]). Daniels can probably think of more ways than anyone to devolve power back to the people. For starters, he surely would not have us paying for two presidential cabinets and their staffs — a congressionally approved one and a behind-the-scenes socialist one. Daniels would smash the idea of cabinet positions as patronage and put competent people in those positions, actually delegating authority rather than hiding faceless malignancies in a vast bureaucracy that emits gaseous bubbles of putrid legislation (whether to be imposed by group-think or fiat) for lazy, photo-op signatures and the destruction of the country.
I knew very little about Daniels before the last six months or so. Most striking to me is that he speaks with quiet authority on financial and executive matters. He once he told a journalist, “I could cut things that the majority of people would never miss,” and I believed him! He seems to combine outstanding ability with north-star integrity.
While I have not yet read all of this post’s discussion, I see the CPAC dispute comes up downthread. I had not previously thought of the parallel between how the issue of abortion could be handled for political purposes and how gay rights could possibly be handled likewise. I haven’t thought this through yet, but I will say that giving parents choice in their kids’ education by devolving power to local districts would diffuse some of the tension surrounding gay rights. As for abortion, I think the national tide has turned on this specifically because so many women have learned the hard way that this practice hurts women (and teen daughters) almost as much as it hurts infants. One pro-life news site recently had an article saying that science is now suggesting the mother-baby bond is “hard-wired.” On this issue, I think the majority of the U.S. citizenry is probably like the Bible’s two characters named Joash. Gideon’s father was able to do the right thing in the face of adversity only when he had the guidance of a good leader. Similarly, King Joash lost his way when he lost his human mentor. I don’t foresee the political right ever imposing their view of abortion against the will of the people because I think the vast majority of Americans are either pro-life or ambivalent on this subject. The only strong resistors, imo, will be those for whom abortion is in some way a financially self-serving interest. I will be thinking about how something similar could possibly play out for gays, but it doesn’t seem to me like a clear parallel. Maybe politically so. I regret the split at CPAC. While CPAC is apparently an insiders’ conference, most of the public are neither insiders, nor political strategists. We only know that we are sick and tired of our government promoting the ruin of our kids in a variety of ways. This cannot be overstated. I will try not to comment similarly in the future. I will also pray for God’s help to those now ensnarled in a conflict.
Kestrel
I Commend You All
jnowlin Saturday, January 22nd at 8:39AM EST (link)We are often put in the position of voting for candidates who most agree with our views while understanding that it is a rare occassin or more likey never occurs when we agree with 100% of their views there are legitimate issues where the line must be drawn. I commend RedState for drawing a line in defense of the most defensless.
There are those who first draw the line on their perception of electability and then live with any positions they may disagree on. This wrong thinking has led us to where we are.
In the Declaration, Jefferson cites Life first and I thank RedState for drawing this line first as well!
you probably will never see anything i write
edwyrd (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 8:54AM EST (link)on the front page…
i have conservative friends who bemoan our montra of government non-intervention in all but the sacred right to life.
neal boortz calls himself the high prierst of the “painfull truth”, yet won’t let nary a word be spoke of abortion on his radio show, claiming that we chase the preciious “independants” away. how painful is abortion neal? physically, emotiomally, culturally, economically, and on and on.
i say abortion is the root cause of ALL that ails america. think quietly about the numbers for a moment, add illeagal immigration to the quotient, add the corroding morality of our culture, add the “malability” of the “truth” in politics. add our univeral paradigm before the lord, yes, thast right, before the eyes of god; what great destruction we do to our “collective” salvation. lets hope its doesn’t lead us to extinction, on earth and in his presence.
I MAKE THE PLEDGE
“but men are different, they propound mathmatical theorms in beleaguered cities, conduct metaphysical arguments in condemned cells, make jokes on scaffolds, discuss the last new poem while advancing to the walls of quebec and comb their hair at thermopylae. it is our nature!
—C.S Lewis, weight of glory
Huge GC amens on this drawn line and re my shared disappointment in Boortz and
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 10:15AM EST (link)his abortion blindness and hostility to people of faith generally.
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Right to Life... Protection of the Unborn...
rbdwiggins (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 9:01AM EST (link)The Defining Civil Rights Movement of the 21rst Century…
Will our Republic stand, or fall?
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.” – Ronald Reagan
kowalski...
rbdwiggins (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 9:07AM EST (link)Thanks Leon…
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.” – Ronald Reagan
God bless the children
SoFiMil (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 9:17AM EST (link)on this day of reflection.
www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com
Gosnell should thank his lucky stars
veritaseequitas Saturday, January 22nd at 9:27AM EST (link)(he has no God to thank) that he is in custody. Otherwise, he might suffer the same deserved fate of the unholy, unlamented “Dr.” George Tiller.
I don't want the man to go to hell*
SoulEspresso Saturday, January 22nd at 10:19AM EST (link)but I do pray he has nightmares of the children he’s murdered every day for the rest of his life.
No prison sentence or death penalty could make right what he’s done.
___
*2 Peter 3:9
Fortunately....
pirate55 (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 6:16PM EST (link)…it is not for you, or I to decide!
No Phony Martyrs
Superheater (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 1:14AM EST (link)Unless this guy clubs a baby seal in public, the left would go bananas if got so much as a hangnail. Trust me, once he’s in the pen, his life will be hell on earth, especially when the rest of the inmates find out he had a special room for white women.
Abortion has been good for America
kilowattradio Saturday, January 22nd at 9:34AM EST (link)The fact of the matter is by allowing women to abort unwanted children we have saved billions of dollars in taxpayer costs. Unwanted babies are often neglected and/or end up in foster care. Unwed Mothers end up on welfare with the fathers skipping out on child support. The kids who most likely would have been raised in poverty would most likely ended up as criminals. Maybe 1 in 10,000 of those aborted children would have ended up as productive Adults in society.
Also real Republicans don’t want to see the government dictate to a free indivdual they must have a baby they don’t want.
God Bless America & Let us keep medical privacy rights strong in America.
Best Regards, Keith
Free TCL/TK 8.5 Software for Uniden Radio Scanners
you're unwanted
edwyrd (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 9:42AM EST (link)does that mean you should be killed? how are your rights to life any greater than another americans’ right to life? and how many einsteins, reagans, mozarts, edisons, and on and on have been summarily put to death by their own mothers? immoral jackwagon…
“but men are different, they propound mathmatical theorms in beleaguered cities, conduct metaphysical arguments in condemned cells, make jokes on scaffolds, discuss the last new poem while advancing to the walls of quebec and comb their hair at thermopylae. it is our nature!
—C.S Lewis, weight of glory
Medical privacy and utilitarianism...
Crowe (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 9:45AM EST (link)That’s a really sick position to take. That society is better off if someone else is deprived of the opportunity to live. That life itself isn’t worth living because the person isn’t convenient. You reduce persons to their productivity, base their right to life on a cost-benefit analysis, and then lecture us on what “real Republicans” would do, without once considering whether the human being who is most directly affected by the abortion–i.e., the child being aborted–should have any say in the matter at all. But since that person has no ability to speak we can’t hear it scream in agony or ask politely to be allowed a chance. We just let it be sliced to ribbons as we lament foster care costs and projected crime rates. Disgusting. That’s a human being, not a balance sheet. Why not start executing repeat offenders who steal their third or fourth car? Why not empower cops who pull over people for DUI to summarily execute them? Why not just off granny at retirement age? Why not let the kid be born and give him or her a chance to get to school and try to make something of himself/herself, and if he/she ends up as you predict by age 14 or 15, “abort” them then? No real harm done by a 14 year old, is there?
“We sleep soundly in our beds only because
rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence upon those who would do us harmDear Leader Obama gives us leave to do so.”The twilight Zone had something to say about this...watch the full episode
AceInTX (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 11:03AM EST (link)"Embed" didn't work...Twilight Zone/The Obsolete Man
AceInTX (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 11:05AM EST (link)!
Oh well...it won't work...Watch it at the CBS web site here
AceInTX (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 11:08AM EST (link)http://www.cbs.com/classics/the_twilight_zone/video/?pid=yoOMIq0utv_XnymFmH6948IuIbbMyOkI&vs=Default&play=true
Let me try that again...I hate this new code editor
AceInTX (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 11:47AM EST (link)http://www.cbs.com/classics/the_twilight_zone/video/?pid=yoOMIq0utv_XnymFmH6948IuIbbMyOkI&vs=Default&play=true
I think I figured it out. "The Obsolete Man"
AceInTX (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 12:23PM EST (link)ya GOT ta love rod serling
edwyrd (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 11:09AM EST (link)he fought in the pacific in some pitched battles and was lucky to survive. why is it that tyranny, no matter where nad when it surfaces, always takes the same form. the obstruction and outright denial of truth. the total control of the mind and body of the individual. one thinks that in the future, if we do nothing to stop these freak liberals, they will not only condone abortion, but force it. and to logically extend “obsolete” to post birth individuals. you can see this, not far off, in the “global warmer” philosophy
nice video, AcelnTX
“but men are different, they propound mathmatical theorms in beleaguered cities, conduct metaphysical arguments in condemned cells, make jokes on scaffolds, discuss the last new poem while advancing to the walls of quebec and comb their hair at thermopylae. it is our nature!
—C.S Lewis, weight of glory
Offing undesireables
Crowe (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 9:54AM EST (link)When the prison population gets too big for the prison and/or counties cannot afford to run the prison, some counties have been forced to release prisoners whose sentences were not completed. They, of course, release those with the lowest risk to society. But why not just execute the worst offenders–those most likely to cause society future problems? Who cares if their offense didn’t rise to the level of capital punishment–we can be even more certain that they will be repeat offenders than we can that children who are not aborted will be future offenders, so why not start executing prisoners rather than releasing them?
Or handicapped kids? They’ll never really amount to much or contribute to the economy, so why not just execute all kids who need special education and will never be productive members of society? And then we can just start offing entire sectors of people based on certain characteristics that “pre-dispose” them to be less than productive. Eventually we’ll be herding people into box cars and shipping them off to camps.
It’s a long leap to there only because it is more obvious and harder to ignore, not because it is different morally.
You do realize you have espoused a eugenicist position in the tradition of Margaret Sanger, right?
“We sleep soundly in our beds only because
rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence upon those who would do us harmDear Leader Obama gives us leave to do so.”Why not?
hoosierteacher (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 5:05PM EST (link)“…so why not start executing prisoners rather than releasing them?”
Uhm, why not?
“Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep” – Defoe
Not just sick; dead wrong
Plumb_Bob (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 9:56AM EST (link)Your macabre “analysis” presupposes that “unwanted” translates reliably to “unproductive.” In actual fact, unplanned pregnancy actually correlates POSITIVELY with productive life — more planned children end up being abused and neglected. So rather than abortion eliminating 50 million welfare cases, we’ve eliminated perhaps 4 million welfare cases and 46 million taxpayers.
Still think that’s good for the nation? If I took the time, I could calculate what percentage of the current national debt is directly attributable to our insane abortion policy; believe me, the percentage would have 2 digits.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, “Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture,” at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
Hey, how about we force abortions on welfare moms
bk (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 10:04AM EST (link)Surely that would save a lot of money. Sigh….
The elitist left support abortion mostly for this reason
Common_Cents (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 10:25AM EST (link)Look at what groups factor high in abortions?
a. lefty elites don’t mind if the unwashed masses abort
b. elites get to go through life with little or no consequence for their own actions (im sure most of them are haunted by their own decision)
Obama=Golfer in Chief, Leading from,
behind, the Back Nine.Leaders don’t create movements. Movements create leaders. Get involved. Your future depends on it.
Govt “invests” YOUR tax money for POLITICAL return rather than economic return.
I guess for all of your reasoning for KILLING babies....
JadedByPolitics (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 10:12AM EST (link)the same could be said of old people with maladies and the crippled but you lefties never say that you just put in place a supposed healthcare bill and set up boards to decide how to KILL those that made it through!
You are a sick and mentally deranged individual if you believe that KILLING a baby is somehow a “right” of privacy, what it is unfortunately is a “right” to MURDER!
Unified Patriots – How-To:
Activists Taking Action
Wow is this comment serious?
scorpio0679 (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 10:17AM EST (link)The same principles underpinning your argument were used to justify the Holocaust. You are a disgusting human being.
What a stupid, inane, immoral, vapid, and asinine statement...so we should kill children in order to be fiscally responsible?
AceInTX (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 10:49AM EST (link)What a crass, unthoughtful and selfish thought…
Maybe society is wasting to much money on you and we should sever your spine with a pair of scissors?
I will pray for you.
BTW…are you wishing Kieth Olberman well in your sig line?
Are you sure Red State is a place you should play?
Yeah, abortion's great for America!
aesthete (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 1:51PM EST (link)So what if it means having to kill millions, so long as we’re not paying 2% more in taxes!
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
You should thank God every day....
chbroussard (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 3:04PM EST (link)that your own mother didn’t consider YOU “unwanted.”
The abortion mentality is what is causing the social decay
ssshannon1026 (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 8:16PM EST (link)And the social decay is what is filling up our prisons. If we had maintained a moral society, those children would have been born and they would have become productive citizens jsut as their parents and grandparents did before them. You analysis is perverse and wrong.
Wrong line
Plumb_Bob (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 9:44AM EST (link)The court permitted the nation to murder more than 50 million human souls.
Explain to me why this is not, by itself, sufficient cause for armed rebellion and overthrow of what is clearly an immoral government. And explain further why we have not engaged in that conflict.
I am completely serious. If we genuinely believe that a murder of this magnitude has occurred, we need to state very clearly why we are not aiming to overthrow the perpetrators — and we need to consider, each of us, whether we really accept those reasons. ‘Cause from where I sit, we’re no less culpable than the Germans who went merrily along with the mass murder of the Jews.
Somebody explain where I’m wrong, here. I don’t see it.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, “Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture,” at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
The answer to murder is not more killing.
SoulEspresso Saturday, January 22nd at 10:15AM EST (link)The OP made this clear: we still have legal recourse.
On an emotional level, I get it. But we’re just not there yet. We don’t wanna stoop to their level.
Yes, we still have legal recourse, but on a moral plane I have long looked in the mirror and seen a coward
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 11:57AM EST (link)If the persons being killed in the millions were aged 24-55, wouldn’t we call that sufficient provocation?
Abortion is worse than slavery or the Stamp Act.
But yes, by all means lets exhaust the legal recourses, i.e. getting Justice Kennedy’s mind right or retired, while be descend further into barbarism.
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
If war is "stooping to their level"...
Plumb_Bob (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 12:37PM EST (link)… then morally speaking, we should still be subjects of the British crown.
I’m of the same generation and religion as you are, and like you, I can’t even conceive of picking up a weapon and shooting another man. But I’m raising the moral question because I’m beginning to think that’s less about my morality, and more about my cowardice.
As to our not being there yet, and having legal recourse, how’s that Pro Life Amendment coming? The last legal challenge to Roe was decided 20 years ago (thank you, Bob Casey), and failed because the first woman Supreme Court justice, who knew perfectly well both that abortion is wrong and that Roe is unconstitutional, lacked the courage to be known as the woman who denied other women their “right.” When’s the next one, do you suppose?
Forty years, zero progress, 50 million dead. Am I the only one wondering how long this must continue before we say “No more?”
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, “Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture,” at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
just get rudi elected and be patient
jerry39 (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 6:24PM EST (link)Sarcasm of course, but pointed at the root of the problem. Our side is supposed to be protecting life, but that issue always seems to be the one that must be sacrificed to win elections.
The unborn simply don’t vote. They don’t donate to our churches either. So we let the left sell us on abortion 40 years ago, and the politicians on our side often dont want to make a fuss and offend those who are still sold.
It doesn’t take a war, and it doesn’t take a constitutional amendment. It takes 1 brave state to say that personhood begins at conception, or perhaps at heartbeat (13 days) and then extend due process and equal protection rights to the unborn. Attack roe at its weakest point. If the supremes have the audacity to hear the heartbeat as evidence and still say it can be stopped on a whim, then we nullify. Then we create a constitutional crisis and pray. While its easy to ignore the unborn because they can’t vote or donate, its also pretty hard to go to war for those who want to kill babies. So I think we win with just one strong state.
Wrong.
writeblock Sunday, January 23rd at 9:59PM EST (link)Had you backed Rudy in 2008, we would now have two more SC justices like Scalia. But you wanted purity. So you got Obama–and two brand new liberal justices. How did that help the pro-life cause?
Nonsense deserving of no reply, utter nonsense. nt
powertothepeople (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 10:01PM EST (link)If you think Giuliani lost because of socons
Bill S (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 10:05PM EST (link)you are unhinged (but we knew that already). The guy was a crappy campaigner with a crappy campaign strategy. He didn’t need social conservatives to lose – he was quite capable of doing it himself by ignoring the first few states of the primary season. By the time the campaign came to Florida, his big stand, it was already over. He was a strategic no-op.
Let me clue you in, bub. If you had paid attention to the Directors post, you would note that there is a distinct priority paid to life issues here. The Directors, the editors/contributors (including myself), and a vast majority of the member diarists, are going to put a big priority on life issues, now and until abortion is eliminated in this country. You are outnumbered and if we were smart, we’d ignore you. But like the rest here, I don’t seem to be able to resist foolishly engaging a fool.
Signing out now…
“It’s such a fine line between stupid, and clever.” – David St. Hubbins
I was wondering how long it would take to get to Rudy.
gekster (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 10:07PM EST (link)Didn’t he just pull in 2% at the recent poll in NH?.
Rudy…Rudy…Rudy…Rudy…
Rudy…Rudy…Rudy…Rudy…
Rudy…Rudy…Rudy…Rudy…
Rudy…Rudy…Rudy…Rudy…
Rudy…Rudy…Rudy…Rudy…
They say Republicans are for the rich, Democrats are for the poor.
If they need more voters,
then they have to make more of who they are for.
We are there in the various Tea Party groups, leaderless, but not rudderless.
We steer always toward the Constitutional principles this nation was founded upon.
Erick Brockway
Ok folks, 2012 is here. Get involved
We had another guy with a Rudy fetish
Bill S (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 10:11PM EST (link)Forget the username – hasn’t showed up lately. I think we may have shown him the door already for going overboard on the love-fest.
“It’s such a fine line between stupid, and clever.” – David St. Hubbins
Surprise surprise
Neil Stevens (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 10:12PM EST (link)The guy who promises to be pro-life, but flips out at the idea that we’re pro-life at RedState, backs the guy who declared
taxpayer-funded mass infantcide was a Constitutional right.
RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules
Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.
“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder
Funny, but I thought...
writeblock Monday, January 24th at 12:55AM EST (link)we were talking about how to win elections so we can do what’s best for the pro-life movement. How is that “flipping out at the idea we’re pro-life” at RedState? What it sounds like is intolerance for anybody’s viewpoint but your own.
Well we are first and foremost a Godly...
JadedByPolitics (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 10:17AM EST (link)people and we are and have been fighting this from day one peaceably. I think that we have shown that this fight can be won without MORE bloodshed and we are winning, it is an inch at a time and to slow but to take up arms would be to give the leftists the government and full and unfettered control of all of us. Do you not think the Military would stand with the government? Do you not think they, even with all of us armed would win? I love your passion but let us not lose the battle over a skirmish with weapons.
Unified Patriots – How-To:
Activists Taking Action
A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still
SoulEspresso Saturday, January 22nd at 10:25AM EST (link)The problem with the Civil War is that it never actually convinced slaveholders they had ever been in the wrong–hence the Jim Crow laws years later. The bloodshed did nothing to change hearts and minds.
Jaded’s right–we’re winning by persuasion, which means the win will be deeper and more lasting than one imposed with guns.
(… Well, I should amend that: pro-life people will also always outbreed pro-choice people. People of faith have a natural Darwinian advantage that way. Heh.)
I agree and with Alevda King having her...
JadedByPolitics (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 10:32AM EST (link)bus rides like during the 60′s for life, even more minds are changed. That horror of abortionists from the other day was killing blacks, hispanics mostly in that neighborhood and that is what we have to make those groups understand about Democrats, that they truly want them dead. That they continue to vote for their own genocide NEVER ceases to amaze me, education is the answer, NOT weapons!
Each new advance in sonograms shows the babies as babies and NOT cells, earlier and earlier in the pregnancy and each time that happens more and more people come to the side of LIFE!
Unified Patriots – How-To:
Activists Taking Action
We're not winning anything
Plumb_Bob (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 12:30PM EST (link)The Civil War stopped slavery in its tracks. Perhaps it would have ended within 20 years or so anyhow — and then again, perhaps not. But the slaves were free, and were never enslaved again.
As to winning by persuasion, please: there were 1,000,000 abortions performed in the US in 1977, and about 800,000 performed in 2007. Forty years, 20% reduction, mostly having to do with demographic shifts. The latest generation of kids thinks Jersey Shore is normal behavior. In what way is this “winning by persuasion?”
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, “Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture,” at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
The heck we're not
SoulEspresso Saturday, January 22nd at 12:45PM EST (link)http://www.jillstanek.com/breaking-new-gallup-poll-the-n.html
http://liveaction.org/blog/polling-data-americas-youth-becoming-pro-life/
And there are links at those links.
not very helpful
streiff (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 10:38AM EST (link)we’re not supporters of sedition or armed rebellion here. I think you have us confused with somebody else.
“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”
Perhaps we should be
Plumb_Bob (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 12:24PM EST (link)Perhaps we should be. I’m simply raising the question. It is the right question to raise.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, “Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture,” at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
I don't think the directors would look well upon calling for the open, violent overthrow of the government nt
AceInTX (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 11:52AM EST (link)Then let them ban me
Plumb_Bob (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 12:23PM EST (link)But until they do, who are you to tell me what I can and cannot say?
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, “Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture,” at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
They are just as correct to speak out against you as...
minorcanmaven (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 4:51PM EST (link)we are correct to speak out against what we believe to be wicked laws, and poor candidates. And as far as armed rebellion…shame on you. I’m as rowdy as they come, but, I also strive to behave in an intelligent manner and in a fashion that’s legal and biblical. Jesus did not preach overthrowing the Roman government. He said give Ceaser his due. For Christians who are for life, We know to work within the system to change the system. And in our own lives and families we strive to live the biblical standards we believe in, train our children and grandchildren in them be involved in the community to change laws and policies, and generally be the salt and light, in other words be prat of the answer to the problem as much as we are able. Don’t become the problem.
And, if that’s not enough for you, remember Jesus also said to COUNT THE COST of any undertaking (not of the problem, of the undertaking) . Your comments are wrong headed. I applaud your desire to preserve life, but, I implore you to not continue the train of thought you are on.
Minorcan Maven
Freedom isn’t Free ~ But, It’s WORTH It!!
You should know Jesus better.
Plumb_Bob (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 5:27PM EST (link)Jesus was not a Roman citizen, so him speaking about overthrowing the Roman government would have been like somebody from Hungary in 1954 speaking of overthrowing the Soviet government. He spoke PLENTY about the Jewish temple rulers, who were the government of the nation of which he was properly a citizen. Plus, his calling was not to overthrow a temporal government but to establish a spiritual government: “My kingdom is not of this world.” I’m fully supportive of his efforts to do so, and lend my hand to them wherever I can.
Despite this spiritual emphasis, though, Jesus resorted twice to physical violence, throwing merchants physically out of the temple court. So even Jesus is not completely opposed to using force to clean up an errant civil authority.
Now — can we talk about THIS world?
The men who formed this nation were, like you and me, deeply influenced by the instruction of Jesus and His apostles. Somehow, that did not stop them from seeking independence from a ruler whom they regarded as corrupt and tyrannical. As somebody pointed out here, Roe v Wade is a great deal worse than the Stamp Act, and has taken away, not just the liberty of free states, but the lives of 50 million citizens.
Minorcan, I am not saying it’s time to take up arms. I’m saying it’s time to examine our excuses and discard them. I have to tell you, I am not, so far, impressed with the soundness of the excuses for avoiding violence that I’m hearing here. Once we’ve established sound reasons for whatever position we take, there will be plenty of time to count costs. But we’ll never get there if we don’t allow ourselves to think thoughts that some here (like you) claim to be unthinkable. They are NOT unthinkable, and it’s time we started thinking them.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, “Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture,” at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
You've...
minorcanmaven (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 5:40PM EST (link)established yourself on the high thrown of your mind, and no one is ever going to change your mind until you come down.
Minorcan Maven
Freedom isn’t Free ~ But, It’s WORTH It!!
The difference in my mind
aesthete (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 6:25PM EST (link)is that the Stamp Act and the Holocaust, unlike slavery and abortion, were direct violations of others’ rights on the part of government, not government casting a blind eye to the violation of the rights of others by third parties. The latter government is ineffective and needs to be fixed; the former government is directly causing harm and needs to be prevented from doing so.
(I’ll also note that the Stamp Act was just one of many “intolerable acts” listed in the DoI.)
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
As long as you're talking theology...
writeblock Sunday, January 23rd at 10:05PM EST (link)Jesus also said the Children of Light needed to learn from the Children of Darkness in his parable about the Unjust Steward. The point was good people had to learn to be less naive when dealing with the world. This is my point on this thread about social conservatives and politics. We need to think more strategically and with less political naivete.
Hey, you there... with your pitch fork and torch!
H (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 11:54AM EST (link)What have you, personally, done about the problem? Have you even written a letter to get anybody’s subsidized abortion budget reduced or eliminated? Have you joined a prayer group? Have you donated or volunteered to help promote adoption rater than abortion to teen and underprivileged mothers? Have you committed your own life to keeping your family on the pro-life track, setting an example for others not just in how you tlak, but in how you live? Have you bothered to understand the link between artificial birth control and abortion, and the hypocrisy of promoting one and condemning the other?
I thought not.
So don’t come here trying to make martyrs of others while you sit there thinking your fat thumbs are going to tap your soul into heaven by leading a war charge from behind an internet screen name.
Actually, yes I have
Plumb_Bob (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 12:21PM EST (link)I’ve done quite a few of those things. Your assumption that I have not is offensive and stupid, and marks your comment for the self-righteous pap that it is. So don’t get in my face about what I have and have not done. Answer the bloody question.
Yes, I understand that war is an undesirable alternative; only, how many murders does it take before we say “The peaceful approach has not worked?”
And to those who claim it has, please — there were roughly 1 million abortions performed in America in 1977, and around 800,000 in 2007. We’ve hardly even made a dent. Forty years, and the murder continues apace. How long must this go on?
If war is unthinkable, we should be subjects of the British crown. We are not because some men understood that certain godly precepts were worth dying for. I’m tired of looking in the mirror and seeing a coward, but I’m willing to do it a while longer while we consider: are our reasons for refusing to engage in revolution sufficient? I, for one, am willing at least to consider the possibility that they are not.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, “Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture,” at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
Not only are we not in a place yet where violence is justified, it wouldn't work.
SoulEspresso Saturday, January 22nd at 12:57PM EST (link)The American Revolution and the Civil War fell out along territorial lines: the eastern seaboard of North America versus the island crown, and the northern states against the southern.
There are pro-choicers in every state, city and town in America. Where do you start shooting? At abortion clinics? Do you kill the doctors? or the nurses too? or the patients? or the counter-protesters? Good heavens, have you even thought about this?
I’m with you emotionally. But even talking about violence is a terrible idea since we’re winning the argument (and the, um, spawning contest). Some people who are otherwise goodhearted are terribly mistaken on this–but if they can be persuaded, why talk about killing them?
Not sure you know American revolutionary history
Plumb_Bob (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 5:36PM EST (link)SoulE, are you aware that only about 1 out of 3 colonists actively supported the revolution?
The problem of mixed populations was just as real then as it is today. Colonial soldiers encountering ordinary citizens were just as likely to be talking to a Loyalist to the Crown as they were to be talking to a colonial patriot. And in that case as well as ours, our fight would not be against citizen populations (abortionists or not) but against the government that sanctions abortions.
As to whether we’re at a place where violence is justified, I’m simply asking for definition: what, precisely, must happen for us to reach that place? From what I can see in this discussion, none of you have ever thought about that question; your objection to violence is an reflex. Until you actually have a definition of when violence WOULD be justified, you can’t possibly be making sense when you say “We have not reached that place yet.”
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, “Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture,” at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
Sorry but I think you misunderstood me. There's no geographical territory involved in the abortion issue.
SoulEspresso Sunday, January 23rd at 12:15AM EST (link)1/3 Tory, 1/3 Undecided, 1/3 Patriot. Yeah, I know. The point of the Revolution was to get rid of British control of the colonies. Although it started out as an effort to “preserve the Union” everyone knew the Civil War was ultimately about slavery, which meant breaking the Southern States. Both of those wars involved significant geographical factors.
The abortion issue is first and foremost an ideological position. To make long-term changes we must win hearts and minds. This is not optional, and in fact is the only way forward–to win elections you have to persuade the populace.
The government allows abortions and subsidizes private institutions that provide them, but the government does not itself serve as an abortion provider. As mentioned elsewhere, it’s turning a blind eye and has to be adjusted. The government is not the active agent, so I don’t get why you’d fight the government but not citizens who provide abortions.
Armed action would be justified were the government to start forcing abortions on women who didn’t want them. China, for example.
Bob, are you a moby?
H (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 9:24AM EST (link)I think you’re a moby.
How about if we all come over to *your* blog and start soliciting ground rules for armed rebellion?
I think you’re in the wrong place.
uobjection to violence should be a reflex
jerry39 (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 6:44PM EST (link)Nor should it be discussed as if it is not to be reflexivly avoided. That is a reason, whether it sounds reasonable or not. We care for our own unfortunately and are not apt to go to war for our brothers victims, and risk our own becoming victims of our justice. There are many reasons, but yes, selfishness is chief among them. You wanna go off and be John Brown, then gather your posse, otherwise its a topic better left alone.
I'm sure this will raise some eyebrows around here.
NightTwister (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 10:39PM EST (link)But since you brought it up, I would’ve been one of the 2/3rds. As a Christian, I would have opposed the Revolution because it didn’t meet “Just War” criteria. Now that we’re where we are, I support the government in place, but I thought it important here to answer this. Your calls for armed insurrection aren’t wanted here, and quite frankly I’m surprised you’re still around. This is exactly the sort of talk our opposition expects and only fuels their arguments.
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill
NightTwister, I am shocked, I tell you...
CincoSolas_del_Bronx (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 10:18PM EST (link)in a delighted sort of way, to know that there’s at least one other anti-revolutionist here! I’ve long wondered if a new banning category would need be established for Tories. But you’re quite right. The Christian, at least, has to bend in quite inappropriate directions to justify armed revolt against even the most oppressive of actual governments.
Those dreading urbanization should remember that though the Kingdom of God first appeared in a temporal Garden, at the end of the book it is established in an eternal City. (paraphrase, James M. Boice)
soli Deo gloria
OK Bob...
H (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 1:06PM EST (link)Let me know when you open up your recruitment center. We’ll see how it works out for you.
Ok, let's say you have "reached the point" of violence
bcb1 (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 5:53PM EST (link)Let’s accept your premise that you have “reached the point” of violence and overthrow.
What then, do you do now? Round up a band of merry insurgents, and then what? March down on Main Street? Are you going to take over your local police department? The State Police? Shoot people as they go to their jobs working for the government? Maybe your neighbor that had an Obama sign in her yard a couple years ago?
I’m pretty sure every single person on Redstate that considers themselves Patriotic, law abiding citizens would have a problem with venturing out into the streets and shooting people, regardless of their political leanings or religious leanings (or lack thereof).
Actually, we are less culpable than the Germans
aesthete (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 1:57PM EST (link)The government is not rounding up children to slaughter them wholesale, or otherwise actively looking to kill them: it is allowing others to do so if they so desire. That is wrong, but does not rise to the level of using government to force the immoral decision on all mothers.
The appropriate analogy is the slaveholding South, which didn’t protect the rights of slaves (and subsidized systems designed around that flaw), but which mostly did not systematically violate the rights of black slaves. Was Brown right in terrorizing Kansas with his acts of indiscriminate terrorism? I daresay he was not.
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
I've struggled with this.
hoosierteacher (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 5:14PM EST (link)I’ve struggled with this too.
I’m opposed to murdering abortion doctors and bombing clinics, but at the same time there is little (if any) difference between the modern abortion system in the US and the nazi genocide during the holocaust. That said, should people in WW2 Germany have worked within the system to save the Jews (and others being persecuted, such as the gays and gypsies), or should they have taken the fight underground and with violence?
The best answer I’ve come up with is that it was probably much harder to work within the system in WW2 Germany and probably wasn’t feasible. But that answer still doesn’t comfort me.
At what point is violence acceptable? The Declaration of Independence tells us when it is, and the murder of millions of children would seem to fit those parameters. Still, I’m not quite at that point.
“Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep” – Defoe
try this thought
minorcanmaven (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 5:21PM EST (link)I abhor abortion. No question. Where it differs from the slavery and the Germans (imo) is that we are not responsible fore the individuals who will answer to God for what they are doing in abortion, We will answer for our part in trying to change the laws. AND in trying to reqch the minds and hearts of people to help them change their minds and hearts. Sonograms, adoption, love to single parents, and support systems friends and family (and not so much government!)
I hope this helps.
Minorcan Maven
Freedom isn’t Free ~ But, It’s WORTH It!!
I think you make excellent points.
hoosierteacher (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 5:44PM EST (link)I think we ARE responsible for our own decisions. For example, have I adopted a child, or marched against a clinic, or voted with my money and time against abortion candidates? I agree with you.
Sometimes I just wonder if it is enough. I still feel that more can be done.
What stops me is a feeling that I really shouldn’t take up arms or explosives. Call it a Holy Spirit or just my conscience, but it tells me that those things are too wrong for me to pursue them. Still, as an intellectual excercise, it seems awfuly easy for me to justify using violence to defend helpless and innocent people from slaughter.
“Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep” – Defoe
Amen!
minorcanmaven (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 5:53PM EST (link)Love your thoughts on this. Thankful that the Holy Spirit does lead us into all truth, makes us able to be self controlled, and to follow peace!
And I DO think it SHOULD bother us. And most of us could do more personally, but, again that is up to us individually to figure out what our part is…financial contributions, volunteerism…making our expectations known to our candidates for office and sticking to them. Lot was said to be vexed in His righteous soul…so God looked for someone to intercede for him on his behalf. Abraham did, and God was happy to save him from judgment…
Pleasure meeting you!
Minorcan Maven
Freedom isn’t Free ~ But, It’s WORTH It!!
"listening"
promise Sunday, January 23rd at 9:31PM EST (link)the thoughts of people here there begins to come forward “plans” of DO MORE! Which is so true and through prayer God will most certainly show your special place in this atrocity!
I believe God opened the eyes and is giving them couragous in this time of our history!! People now have a weapon to use in demanding fed funds NEVER be used for abortions and to DEFUND Planned Parenthood etc etc!! This butcher in PA did more than has been so far!!
I live the #1 PRO LIFE state! My daughter is a foster parent and has adopted 2 children. Now that makes me a MIMI to more children than probably you will ever meet! It will bruise your heart something awful to see these precious little ones when they come to your home!! BUT Jesus is so very real in our lives and become so to them. The peace and security they live in here, and the rules boundries give a sense of safety that none have known before. Is awesome to see the change in these babies.
My daughter also was for 3 yrs executive directer of the PRC in our town and started an abstinence program.
Now people this is just ONE person who is obedient to God and opened her home, life, family(including me) to this babies, before they are born after they born etc etc etc.
The joy of my new grandkids is UNBELIEVABLE!! In fact the 3yr old is here with me as I write!! What a gift, we got him straight from the hospital!!
PS: Sages who study scriptures discovered in 1038 while studing what God said about Abel’s blood crying out to Him from the earth, BUT upon studing they found the word “blood” to be plural, so not only was Abel’s blood but the sons and daughters he WOULD have had, had he NOT been murdered!! So doubled the number of murdered humans!
God Bless US in spite of us!!
The only justification for armed rebellion
Vaughn Harold (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 8:57PM EST (link)is when a central government has become so corrupt and non responsive to those whom elected them to office. Even at this there is always the possibility of failing at the attempt giving the opposing faction even greater power. The founders did not wish to overthrow the government, they wanted representation. The denial of that representation resulted in a majority of people who would rather die than live under tyranny. My friend we do not live under anything remotely like what the founders had to live under.
Relize that it is “the people”, not the court that has permitted this nation to murder more than 50 million human souls. Overthowing the government will not eradicate a problem that lies within “the people”.
We must change the people and so that the government must follow. It is when the government refuses to follow that armed rebellion has even the slightest chance of any success, and even at that the opposing factions have to be totally eliminated completely, otherwise you end up with the middle east hear in America. Are you prepared for that? Are you really?
because armed rebillion is simply no longer possible.
ssshannon1026 (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 8:18PM EST (link)There is no possible way that an untrained, ill supplied mob is going to successfully wage a military campaign against a modern industrial state. It barely worked 200 years ago, and it certainly would fail today.
This is true shannon.
avgjo (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 8:31PM EST (link)I am certainly not advocating armed rebellion at this point in our history, but what you say raises an important point.
What IF we reached the point where the dictates of Nature’s Law and Nature’s God required such a thing? As you said, we’d not be able to do it.
Redistribution is popular these days among pundits and the ruling class. Why don’t we start working towards a redistribution of force, winding up with something like the Swiss have? The Founding Fathers saw a standing army as a threat to freedom; that’s why they specified ‘militia’ in the 2nd amendment.
Ceterum autem censeo, Obamaecuram esse delendam.
It’s the morality, stupid.
Not exactly true, but such an effort requires truly popular support
JSobieski (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 8:38PM EST (link)Many rebellions are successful because the established military is sympathetic. A rebellion in which the military is itself split is a possibility that can’t be ignored.
My rules of the road for primary season.
Rule #1: Vote for YOUR first choice in the primaries
Rule #2: Vote for the R in the general.
Rule #3: Don’t let anyone convince you to violate Rule #1 or Rule #2
Rule #4: When in a center-right argument, reaffirm Rules #1-#3–it will help us all to get along better.
Rule #5: If you are using the language of the left, you probably aren’t furthering conservativism
Rule #6: The priority is issues first, candidates second, and supporters third. Nobody is bigger than the issues. Conversely, if you spend your time focusing on supporters, you are wasting everyone’s time.
STOP THE MADNESS!
A reduction in the rate of spending increases is NOT a cut!
In-state tuition for illegals is NOT amnesty!
Requiring someone to pay their medical bills is NOT an individual mandate!
Reducing tax rates is NOT a tax increase!
Moreover
aesthete (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 10:52PM EST (link)A rebellion need not be one where conventional armies meet on the field, and most likely would not be. A majority of Americans with firearms waging guerilla warfare against the government would be an absolute nightmare for the federal government, even if we assume that the Armed Forces would be 100% compliant (which they would not be in the event that I describe).
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
An excellent point
JSobieski (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 12:51AM EST (link)As we know from Iraq and Afghanistan, superior air and naval power has limited utility in a guerilla war.
My rules of the road for primary season.
Rule #1: Vote for YOUR first choice in the primaries
Rule #2: Vote for the R in the general.
Rule #3: Don’t let anyone convince you to violate Rule #1 or Rule #2
Rule #4: When in a center-right argument, reaffirm Rules #1-#3–it will help us all to get along better.
Rule #5: If you are using the language of the left, you probably aren’t furthering conservativism
Rule #6: The priority is issues first, candidates second, and supporters third. Nobody is bigger than the issues. Conversely, if you spend your time focusing on supporters, you are wasting everyone’s time.
STOP THE MADNESS!
A reduction in the rate of spending increases is NOT a cut!
In-state tuition for illegals is NOT amnesty!
Requiring someone to pay their medical bills is NOT an individual mandate!
Reducing tax rates is NOT a tax increase!
All the government would need to do to defeat a guerilla war
ssshannon1026 (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 6:37AM EST (link)would be to shut down all the local grocery stores and fast food stores. How many of your guerilla’s would stay in the fight if their families were back home starving to death? Guerilla warfare can only be waged by a population capable of being self sustaining. Not even 1% of our population any longer fits into that category. Sorry, but the only way that solution even becomes thinkable is if the entire system has collapsed entirely and there simply is no social or economic infrastructure of any kind left standing. Besides, the only successful guerilla wars are those that have sympathetic political support among the population of the government they are fighting against. That is something conservatives are never going to have.
Conservativsm simply is not compatible with the underlieing political environment necessary to successfully wage querilla war. Any such effort would quickly collapse into mindless terrorism with no more noble goal than mass murder and anarchy. No thanks.
I completely disagree
aesthete (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 12:43PM EST (link)For one thing, it would be all but impossible to “shut down all the local grocery stores and fast food stores”. Black markets are extremely difficult to eradicate, and such a move would only exacerbate civil unrest. Moreover, most of the populace is conservative: not as much as we are, but enough so that they would be more sympathetic to rebels than to a government that slaughters its own citizens to preserve a leftward lurch on its part. Moreover (and unlike places like Iraq and Afghanistan), our citizens are both intelligent and support an ideology more broadly supported than that of the Taliban or of Sunni insurgents: chemists could make explosives out of household items easily, coordination between guerrillas would be much easier, etc. Lastly, if you think government is fighting carefully in Afghanistan, it would be much more circumspect in dealing with a domestic insurgency: fighting brutally against their own citizens would be a poor move on their part. I’m not saying it would be easy or that insurgents would necessarily win, but I imagine that it would be hard-fought if te conditions that would lead to such a scenario were to unfold.
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
You've got to be kidding
ssshannon1026 (Diary) Tuesday, January 25th at 2:25PM EST (link)Shutting down the food supply would be the easiest thing in the world for the government to do. And any notion of sustaining a revolution on black marker sources of basic necessities is ludicrous. Black markets only work because they can charge whatever they like for their goods. Starving people will pay any price for a slice of bread. Further, the people are not going to blame the government for their hunger, they will blame the revolutionaries who started the war. Finally, by 1865, the south, a population comprised of as self-reliant and tough a population as God ever put on the planet, a population that knew how to farm, raise crops, hunt and take care of all basic necessities were nearly on the brink of starvation – not merely the troops but civilians to. And all of that was caused by the disruption of a far less intricate infrastructure than we have today, and it was achieved by a few thousand guys ridikng around on horse baclk. In the modern world, you couldn’t move a big mac on a moped half a mile before you had a satillite tracked, lazer quided smart missle on your arse fired from thousands of miles away. It is simply ridiculous to even contemplate. A bunch of fat, out of shape middle aged couch potatoes are not going to threaten the government with their little pop guns.
Highly unlikely to happen
ssshannon1026 (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 6:53AM EST (link)I can only assume you are not prior service. The complexity of modern combat would make it virtually impossible for there to be any sort of even division of the resources required to wage combat operations. A tank is worthless without fuel and ammo and soldiers are also. Are the fighter and bomber pilots going to steal the aircraft, the mechanics, the spare parts, the refueling supplies, the ammunition etc, etc, etc, required to make them combat ready for even a weeks worth of combat? Hardly.
A force opposing the government would have to be prepared for having death raining down on them 24/7. Coming from every direction. Unrelenting and without any of the mercy and sypmathy we show to our current enemies. Civilians would be targets, infrastructure everything that makes modern life liveable would be instantly targeted.
Thank you, RedState.
scorpio0679 (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 10:25AM EST (link)For reminding me of the importance of this debate. It is the most important issue of our day, debt or deficits notwithstanding.
I just had a conversation with an very liberal friend of mine where he admitted that a prior experience of a woman he impregnated having an abortion has deeply haunted him for ten years. He said that deep down he knows that he was complicit in murder for paying for the procedure and that if there was one thing in his life he could change, it would be to go back and give that child the opportunity to live.
He told me of this experience after I read him this post by lexington_concord followed by the instant post. After discussing for 15 minutes, he said he could definitely see himself leaving the Democrat party but that he could never see himself registering as a Republican. “Baby steps, brother.”
To me, this was a lesson that the truth has a way of shining through. Keep talking about the issue, in a compassionate and understanding way, and shine light on the truth. To those who are not part of the militant activists, you could be instrumental in setting them free.
5***** nt.
Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle) (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 11:20PM EST (link)“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. “ -James Madison
That's why
lepelerin Saturday, January 22nd at 10:34AM EST (link)Giuliani and Trump won’t get very far in the primaries. They don’t support the GOP platform of right to life.
Which republicans will we trust?
hoosierteacher (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 5:27PM EST (link)There will be a debate on certain candidates. For example, there are a lot of people who would call Romney pro-life, but an awful lot of people that think he’s flipped more than once on the issue. There are other candidates with questionable views too.
I was once lambasted at RedState for saying I would refuse to vote for the republican candidate (at any level of an election) if he/she was pro-choice. This goes for primary and final elections both. I hope the editors’ view on this matter lends credence in the minds of readers that we can’t vote for true “evil”, regardless of a candidate’s other positions on other matters.
(I wouldn’t call myself a single issue voter either. Its just that a pro-abortion candidate isn’t going to be reliable on fiscal and national defense matters if he or she is fundamentaly evil at heart).
At any rate, it will be entertaining to watch the debates as to which candidates measure up to the pro-life standards at RS. I would support RS taking the position that if there is a reasonable doubt, the candidate is out.
“Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep” – Defoe
Some day we will look back in shame
NickDeringer (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 10:52AM EST (link)Abortion and slavery are very much alike.
They both defined a class of beings with no human rights and thus made it OK to sell them as a commodity or just out right kill them.
Someday we will look back in shame at abortion the way we look back at slavery today. How could we have treated our fellow human beings with such brutality?
NickDeringer
I believe you are right, watcher
redneck_hippie (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 2:09PM EST (link)Roe v. Wade must fall someday. I’ve thought so many times and looked to the abolition and civil rights eras for confirmation.
Once again this Saturday my prayers are going out for my friend’s family who are living out a personal nightmare. Sadly, in this instance God’s will is probably once again being disappointed.
As a product of the 1940′s, I came of age in a time when these things took care of themselves with the help of the church and a sense of the living God’s law and presence. Even in high school, the one or maybe two people who “got in trouble” were a public shame. Very few people in my graduating class in suburban, midwestern, 1967 were participants in the “summer of love.” Our dress code in public school would be labelled “taliban” today.
Our cities, and the schools within our cities, sadly reflect what happens to a society that has no line in the sand. And license has no limit.
Roe versus Wade probably won't be overturned because of the filibuster rule
Spiral (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 2:53PM EST (link)Let’s predict for a moment that in November 2012 a pro-life Republican is elected president of the United States, defeating Obama in his bid for reelection.
Let’s also predict that, since there are 23 Democrat Senate seats to defend in 2012 and only 10 Republican Senate seats to defend, the Republicans gain a net of 7 US Senate seats, obtaining a 54 to 46 seat majority.
Further, since moderate US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy turns 77 in July 2013, let’s predict Justice Kennedy announces his retirement.
Any doubts that, of the 46 Democrat US Senators, 41 of them will support an indefinate filibuster of any anti-Roe nominee?
Any doubts at all?
The Obama Bread Lines
I do have doubts
redneck_hippie (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 3:01PM EST (link)but not the ones you are discussing. In either my own or in Biblical terms, “someday” doesn’t say much about whether or not I will have shuffled off this mortal coil.
There is a way.
hoosierteacher (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 5:33PM EST (link)While I agree with what you are saying, it isn’t impossible. The trick is to have a republican president willing enough to drop the stealth crap and just keep nominating outstanding jurists.
Think about it. It works for democrats, and their judicial views are out of step with most of the population. Even if senators are too chicken to stand up for what is right, a strong republican president could just keep nominating strong originalists or strict constructionists to SCOTUS, and dare the democrats to keep shooting down the nominees.
After a couple of candidates, two things would happen.
1) The voting population (mostly independents) would tire of the democrats for playing politics with a president’s choice for SCOTUS, and
2) It would bring the subject of Federalism and reverence for the constitution to the fore of discorse in this country.
I think (given a strong GOP president) that this could really happen.
“Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep” – Defoe
I agree!
minorcanmaven (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 6:16PM EST (link)While at the same time fighting the good fight of continuing to educate people about life, those high tech sonograms, and videos are priceless, provide alternatives, and cut, cut, cut government funds of any kind (city, county, state and federal), and to stop insurance companies paying for it. Make them own it. Until we can get it stopped legally altogether.
Also, if there is a waiting period for buying guns, then why not a waiting period for having an abortion? Fair. And Require the sonogram. And require parental notification. AND make it so the parent can’t force them to get an abortion, but, they can’t get an abortion without their approval.
And let fathers of the baby be required to make an official written statement that they are aware, and whether they approve or not. So that it is a matter of record and they are each forced to deal with reality. Not that the father can change it, but, he should be able to be heard, and he should have to answer.
It should be a serious matter to end this life…right now it’s too easy, far to easy to do and not answer for it.
Minorcan Maven
Freedom isn’t Free ~ But, It’s WORTH It!!
Let the states decide these things
hoosierteacher (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 7:20PM EST (link)I’m for an outright ban on abortion. But the decision on an outright ban or on what limitations (if any) should be set are supposed to be up to each state (according to our constitution).
If we can just repeal Roe, abortion won’t be made illegal. It would just send the decision making process back to each state. I’m ok with that.
“Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep” – Defoe
of course - repeal is the goal!
minorcanmaven (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 7:43PM EST (link)I was just thinking of the many ways to impede and slow down the tide of abortions, until it can go back to the states. All the dialogue getting those laws passed in each state, I would hope would have a cumulative effect. Maybe gathering strength for support for a laws (at the state level) for banning it.
Minorcan Maven
Freedom isn’t Free ~ But, It’s WORTH It!!
Do you mean like Kermit Gosnell?
Scope (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 9:24PM EST (link)The Hyde amendment allowed abortions in the case of incest, rape and with respect to the life of the mother. How many times do you think abortionists used the excuse of rape, incest or the life of the mother? Who is checking on that? Anybody, anybody? Doubtful.
I don't understand...
hoosierteacher (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 4:50PM EST (link)..how your point relates to mine.
We both agree that exceptions to allow abortions are hollow. Killing a baby is killing a baby, whether there is an issue of rape or incest etc. I’m for abortion being completely banned in my state.
Under a constitutional republic, that is the goal; a state by state complete ban.
I don’t see how the Hyde amendment has anything to do with my comment though. The Hyde amendment prevented tax dollars from being used to fund abortions. Let’s just work on repealing Roe and take this issue away from the federal courts and the federal govenrment.
“Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep” – Defoe
good idea
edwyrd (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 10:20PM EST (link)and we could make the “official paternity awareness statement a public document “, thus adding an element of public shame to abortion. this would reduce the number of abortions substantially
“but men are different, they propound mathmatical theorms in beleaguered cities, conduct metaphysical arguments in condemned cells, make jokes on scaffolds, discuss the last new poem while advancing to the walls of quebec and comb their hair at thermopylae. it is our nature!
—C.S Lewis, weight of glory
That isn't the case.
jeffreywturner (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 3:05PM EST (link)A GOP controlled Senate will confirm another conservative Justice just as they confirmed John Roberts. Only 20 Democrats even opposed him.
Also, there are only 2 Republicans left in the Senate who will not support the Nuclear Option if the Dems force our hands on a SCOTUS nominee. So, a GOP majority of at least 52 seats probably gives us the power to get any Republican President’s nominees to the SOCTUS approved, assuming that nominee is not tainted by legitimate scandal.
“Life is too short, can’t we all just eat pork and kill some terrorists?”
True. The GOP could use the Constitutional Option to confirm a conservative to the US Supreme Court
Spiral (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 5:39AM EST (link)If the Democrats filibuster a constitutionalist US Supreme Court nominee, the GOP could decide to use the Constitutional Option and thereby to an end run around the filibuster rule.
Democrat Robert Byrd, as Senate Majority Leader, used the Constitutional Option several times during the 1977-1987 time period to allow the Senate to disregard the Standing Rules of the Senate. So too could the Republicans if they decided the issue at hand was too important to be decided by 41 obstructionist Leftist US Senators.
I’d say that a US Supreme Court seat meets that criteria.
The Obama Bread Lines
That's never going to happen.
Menlo (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 7:57PM EST (link)You’d need for the elected branches to defy the judicial branch. If they were serious, they would have back in the 70′s. The belief that the judiciary can hold both ultimate and illegitimate power over the nation is wrong.
To that end, I would argue that the whole judicial branch deserves no respect or legitimacy and should be abolished. At the very least, the concepts established in Marbury v Madison should be discredited.
Regardless, nothing is going to change in any of our lifetimes.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
as long as we as a society will compromise with murder, we will surrender to anything.
H (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 11:39AM EST (link)So they renamed Eugenics to “Family Planning.” The renamed Feticide to “Choice.”
We’ve renamed surrender to “Compromise.”
If we compromise with murder, we will surrender to anything.
This should be required reading for all Americans nt
AceInTX (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 11:59AM EST (link)Truly one of the best posts ever on this subject.
gracie (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 12:26AM EST (link)I wish there was a way to cut and paste just one post. There are a great number of people I would love to send this to.
I would refer them to the link at the bottom of my quoted text...
H (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 9:15PM EST (link)Here’s the web page…
http://www.chesterton.org/discover/lectures/36eugenics.html
Stuff like this is the reason the name “Gilbert Keith Chesterton” has been all but erased from secular academia.
Science.
Locked and Loaded (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 11:59AM EST (link)To regard the first stages of development of an organism as somehow not being a part of that life requires contorted mental gymnastics indeed. Truly, science has long ago reached the conclusion that a baby in the womb meets all the criteria for life.
The liberty afforded that life is – as was made so painfully clear in the book, Unplanned http://www.redstate.com/lexington_concord/2011/01/12/witness-to-atrocity/ – ripped away by the heartless instruments and actions of the abortionist.
And is a baby in the womb – blissfully rolling, stretching, kicking, sucking its thumb – not already pursuing happiness? Again, the Unplanned excerpt in lexington_concord’s diary makes it painfully clear the abortionist is denying a precious life any chance at further happiness.
I will never accept that abortion is anything but a very practical work of the great deceiver himself.
Since you brought up the great deceiver
SoulEspresso Saturday, January 22nd at 1:01PM EST (link)let me point out that this isn’t the first culture to practice infant sacrifice. Only the names of the gods have changed. Baal, Molech, Chemosh, etc. –> Personal Freedom, Choice, Reproductive Freedom, etc.
If a spacecraft found an embryo on an asteroid
kowalski (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 12:20PM EST (link)If one of our interplanetary spacecraft landed on a comet or another body in the solar system and discovered an embryo, and sent back evidence of that discovery to Earth, the world’s newspapers would write the headline:
“Life Discovered on Comet”
If a sample was sent back to Earth and it was determined that the embryo contained substantially identical genetic material to ours, the headlines would be:
“Human Life Discovered on Comet”
And yet here, on Earth, we have decided for legalistic and political reasons that human life isn’t human life until it’s convenient for us to call it human life.
I agree with you, and I support you, and at one time I didn’t agree with you or support you because I had been pushed down the slippery slope. More accurately, I had talked myself down the slippery slope.
Defend Liberty — Join the NRA | Live in Massachusetts? Join GOAL.
Is there a more clearly defined, enduring single issue?
jeffreywturner (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 1:17PM EST (link)I don’t really think so.
This issue is just as contentious as it was 40 years ago.
Abolition is no longer contentious because we know now it was the morally right thing to do.
Integration – ditto.
Abortion though? Still as hotly contested as ever. The reason it is still so contentious is that it was wrongly decided in the first place.
“Life is too short, can’t we all just eat pork and kill some terrorists?”
Can the unborn sue to stay alive?
pastisprolog Saturday, January 22nd at 1:28PM EST (link)Consider this a question for any lawyers out there. Lawyers sue on behalf of dogs and cats, trees and owls and other animals and even things vegetable and mineral, to protect their interests.
Are lawyers able to sue on behalf of unborn children not to be aborted? I find it hard to believe this hasn’t been tried, but it must have lost in court. Does anybody know why?
Good Move
drivlikejehu Saturday, January 22nd at 1:44PM EST (link)Has Redstate endorsed pro-choice candidates? My memory is failing me but I don’t recall. Regardless it’s a good move to have a clear policy in this regard. There are occasional cases where a pro-choice candidate makes political sense (e.g., Scott Brown) and there really is no alternative. However, those candidates do not need a Redstate endorsement- they may not even want one.
I personally do not support pro-choice candidates and applaud Redstate’s statement.
No
Bill S (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 4:56PM EST (link)and we won’t.
“It’s such a fine line between stupid, and clever.” – David St. Hubbins
Abortion equals Lynching
chihank Saturday, January 22nd at 2:30PM EST (link)Back in the 1970s, Jesse Jackson compared abortion to lynching. He also said its was horrible that God would consider any baby to be unwanted. However as Jackson became more involved with the Dem party, he dropped his pro-life stands. Despite, Jackson’s flip-flop on abortion, I agree with his past statements on abortion.
Oklahoma, Louisiana atop anti-abortion list
Steve Maley (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 2:43PM EST (link)Louisiana slips a notch in rating by pro-life group
The blogger formerly known as ‘Vladimir’.
Two thoughts...
jb13 (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 2:47PM EST (link)1) Many of the same people who will scream and yell and kvetch about babies in the womb not being alive and human, despite all scientific evidence to the contrary, are the same people who will scream and yell and kvetch about “global warming deniers” who are “anti-science,” despite far less scientific evidence to support the theories of manmade climate change.
2) Many of the same people who will scream and yell and kvetch about abortion needing to remain a “right” are the same people who will go into convulsions of murderous rage at the news that someone so much as hit a dog or didn’t feed a horse.
(Mind you, I do not believe inhumane behavior to animals is acceptable. But I do so as a result of a heartfelt belief that life is sacred, and if a defenseless and innocent creature is under your protection and in your care, you have every obligation to not harm that creature. In other words, the same motivation that would drive me to not beat my dog springs from the same belief that guide my opposition to abortion. My beliefs and actions are not walking, talking contradictions.
I dare a leftist pro-abort to say the same.)
Good points all.
concap (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 11:05PM EST (link)In August 1995, McCorvey announced that she had switched sides on the abortion debate. “I’m pro-life,” McCorvey stated. “I think I have always been pro-life, I just didn’t know it.” McCorvey’s reversal was attributed to her new friendship with the Reverend Philip (“Flip”) Benham, national director of the militant antiabortion group Operation Rescue. The group had moved its national headquarters into an office next to the clinic where McCorvey worked.
After being “””””””baptized”””””” by Benham, McCorvey declared that she would work on behalf of Operation Rescue.
McCorvey is Jane Roe of Roe v Wade.
Lets be honest, when was the last time any of you, myself included has gone fishing and stood on a street corner to witness and pass out tracts?
Rather than get out and do what is required of us as Christians, we have let the left infiltrate our lines and under the disguise of Conservatism, split the Nation.
Everyone keeps saying the Government never gets any thing right, yet here we are trying to use the government to force our personal views of abortion down the throats of the non believers, knowing dang well it will never work. Well, how long has this been going on?
They say “All politics are local“. Nothing is truer when it comes to this issue.
All you can do is pray and hopefully, when we get the power, Roe v Wade will be over turned.
Not through a ban on abortion but through a constitutional amendment stating life begins at conception. Nothing more nothing less. All existing laws will take care of the rest.
Abortion, for or against is just a personal opinion.
The scientific fact that life begins at conception is just that. A fact.
Siding with the Fiscal First, will just have to be a leap of faith.
The Constitution is neither Right or Left, it is American.
You need neither be Right or Left to vote American.
When you vote on the Federal level based on politics, you are voting for a lobbyist to promote your own personal wants and force them on others through taxation and legislation.
FF/FS/SL/RMIL/OK
Fiscal Federal/Fiscal State/Social Local/Retired Military/Oath Keeper
Just on Fox
concap (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 6:19PM EST (link)In short
The fiscal first conservatives have rocketed more pro-life candidates to Washington than ever before, thus increasing the social conservatives chances of over turning Roe v Wade
I have said all along. If you are fiscal first the rest will take care of itself.
The Constitution is neither Right or Left, it is American.
You need neither be Right or Left to vote American.
When you vote on the Federal level based on politics, you are voting for a lobbyist to promote your own personal wants and force them on others through taxation and legislation.
FF/FS/SL/RMIL/OK
Fiscal Federal/Fiscal State/Social Local/Retired Military/Oath Keeper
Ahh, but if you are both
runner12 (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 6:53PM EST (link)you increase your chances even more. These people WON because they were both, not either or.
They are both
concap (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 7:06PM EST (link)It’s fiscal first (not instead of) social
They are one in the same. Do you think the fiscals sit around all day and try to figure out how to get Social Conservatives into office?
Fiscals all have one thing in common, fiscal.
And if two are better than one. Why the Tea Party?
The Constitution is neither Right or Left, it is American.
You need neither be Right or Left to vote American.
When you vote on the Federal level based on politics, you are voting for a lobbyist to promote your own personal wants and force them on others through taxation and legislation.
FF/FS/SL/RMIL/OK
Fiscal Federal/Fiscal State/Social Local/Retired Military/Oath Keeper
You're going to be very disappointed over the next 24 months. nt
Vaughn Harold (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 7:18PM EST (link)I think you are reading the elections the wrong
runner12 (Diary) Tuesday, January 25th at 8:04PM EST (link)way. As I said in a diary a few months ago, many social conservatives abandoned their conservative roots and spent money like crazy and expanded the government. That is why they lost the trust of the American people. They were progressives, Republican-style. It really had little to do that they were social conservatives and more to do with their abandonment of the other two core beliefs of conservatism (fiscal responsibility and limited government).
In the recent elections, we saw a resurgence of the true conservative. A fiscal and social conservative who believes in limited government. THAT is what the Tea Party is all about. There is a difference between saying we need to triage the issues and saying we need to place abortion “in the corner.”
There is no rule we that says that they cannot address both. It is possible and it is a winning strategy.
This was a reply to concap
runner12 (Diary) Tuesday, January 25th at 8:06PM EST (link)Sorry V.H.
Man, I’m lost
concap (Diary) Tuesday, January 25th at 8:44PM EST (link)I have been in agreement with you right down the line. I still am.
This post totally lost me. Not in support, but in terminology.
What is a Republican-style progressive? Were you talking about Bush?
He did not abandon fiscal, you can‘t be one without the other and be a conservative. He was just Social First (not instead of) fiscal. He did lower some taxes.
You are saying the movement now is made up of true conservatives.
(fiscal and social conservative who believes in limited government).
These are Fiscal First (not instead of) social
The Tea Party is made up mostly of Fiscal First (not instead of) social.
The other conservatives were true conservatives also.
These are Social First (not instead of) fiscal
Remember they both come from the same root and can’t be separated.
My point was proven on Fox the other day when a segment was about this:
In short, not a quote.
The fiscal first conservatives have rocketed more pro-life candidates to Washington than ever before, thus increasing the social conservatives chances of over turning Roe v Wade.
This was Fox news saying this, not me.
The Constitution is neither Right or Left, it is American.
You need neither be Right or Left to vote American.
When you vote on the Federal level based on politics, you are voting for a lobbyist to promote your own personal wants and force them on others through taxation and legislation.
FF/FS/SL/RMIL/OK
Fiscal Federal/Fiscal State/Social Local/Retired Military/Oath Keeper
Gotcha
runner12 (Diary) Tuesday, January 25th at 10:23PM EST (link)I re-read your statement and I see what you meant. But some of your earlier threads were along a slightly different line. Telling social conservatives to take their issues “to the corner” is akin to telling them to go to the back of the bus. I guess sometimes you seem to talk out of both sides of your mouth to me, which makes it hard to determine where you are coming from.
If both social and fiscal conservatism come from the same root why not take on the social issues and fiscal ones simultaneously? I have to admit I am jaded by the fact that I have yet to see a social liberal who was fiscally responsible and for limited government actually run for office. Until I see one, I am going to go with the trifecta of social conservatism, fiscal conservatism, and limited government without asking a candidate to back down on any one of those issues.
P.S. My progressive statement was in reference to mainly squishy congressmen/women who claimed to be socially conservative and yet voted for every spending bill that came up. While Bush was not quite in this category, he did not share the view of limited government that most conservatives espouse.
That’s cool
concap (Diary) Tuesday, January 25th at 10:41PM EST (link)Put you have the corner thing all wrong.
“Telling social conservatives to take their issues “to the corner” is akin to telling them to go to the back of the bus”.
The only time I used “to the corner” was to suggest to the Believers such as myself, to go out and witness to the Non-Believers in order to cut down on abortions.
The born again Christians know what I was talking about.
Take it to the corner, means get out on the street, pass out tracts and get Non-Believers to convert. Casting the net. Fishing
I don’t get the back of the bus connection.
The Constitution is neither Right or Left, it is American.
You need neither be Right or Left to vote American.
When you vote on the Federal level based on politics, you are voting for a lobbyist to promote your own personal wants and force them on others through taxation and legislation.
FF/FS/SL/RMIL/OK
Fiscal Federal/Fiscal State/Social Local/Retired Military/Oath Keeper
Well apparently I was multi-tasking or
runner12 (Diary) Wednesday, January 26th at 6:27PM EST (link)something and misread your post. But your position on this subject does not quite align with mine, but we can agree to disagree. BTW, I am a Christ-follower and that term was a new one to me. Guess you learn something new every day.
Can we get this permanently front paged? nt.
Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle) (Diary) Saturday, January 22nd at 11:29PM EST (link)“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. “ -James Madison
Another message to Republican moderates
Old_Dominion (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 8:39AM EST (link)that we can go FOAD. Not all that surprising, if consistently disappointing. We’ll still continue to support the party, even if you’d prefer that we don’t.
"Kill the people" or "terminate the unwanted pregnancies"?
Veronica (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 1:29PM EST (link)I’m tired of our desensitized society accepting euphemisms for what done to these babies — which is, namely, tearing, sucking, spinning, spilling at an abortionist’s feet.
It’s evil. It’s violent. And I hate it.
But I’m supposed to put my anger away and watch my rhetoric.
Meanwhile, horrific violence — a rip-apart pain that no living person can comprehend — is allowed to be committed on the most innocent .. and the hypocritical left condemns the typical American for ignoring the plight of those around the planet experiencing death, genocide, discrimination, or any other denial of their “human rights.”
Aren’t these children “human”?
Who has the right to define human-ness or to claim they don’t experience pain, when we very well know they do?
I’ve read of 14-week-old twins caressing each other, because we know it’s soothing to be touched and held.
How the hell does a cannula feel when it rips your arm off?
Its age-appropriate genocide is what it is. Occurring anytime before 40-weeks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pray as if everything depends on God, and work as if everything depends on us. – St. Augustine
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~