Skip to comments.Frum Here to Insanity
Posted on 07/09/2011 2:34:51 AM PDT by AustralianConservative
David Frum is a writer who, in 1997, engaged in a spirited online debate with homosexual writer Andrew Sullivan over the topic of homosexual "marriage." In over 5,500 words of text, Frum was articulate, cogent, and compelling in his opposition to radically redefining marriage, saying that "this request isn't just misplaced, but is actually logically impossible." Now, however, Frum has changed his mind. In a short CNN op-ed last week, he wrote that "the case against same-sex marriage has been tested against reality. The case has not passed its test."
Tested? Only five out of the fifty states (soon to be six, when New York's new marriage law takes effect) and the District of Columbia currently allow same-sex "marriage." Of those, only one (Massachusetts) has had it for more than three years. It's ludicrous to think this provides enough data to tell us definitively what the institution of marriage and the American family would look like, say, fifty years from now if the U.S. Supreme Court mandates legalization of homosexual "marriage" in all fifty states (as would be the case if U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker's decision from last year is upheld). It took a generation for the devastation wrought by the public policy of no-fault divorce to become clear. Homosexual "marriage" did not initiate the separation of lifelong commitment, marriage, sex, procreation, and parenthood--which were once viewed as normally a package (occurring in that order). But redefining marriage would affirm the institution's deconstruction, when it desperately needs to be reconstructed instead. Frum knew this in 1997. Sadly, his decline to political correctness is more likely the result of peer pressure from the self-styled intellectual elites than from the evidence of any "test."
(Excerpt) Read more at frc.org ...
If he's honest, he will be banished by the open-minded of the media culture. If he's banished, he loses his contacts, his insider info, his sources of ideas for his stories and columns. In short, his career is over.
frum is no longer frum...if you get my drift.
Neocons unwavering dedication is to duping the US govt. Surely you've heard of:
Neocons' 12-Step Program For Fascist Islamic Dictators To Achieve Democracy."
1. "Not to worry, guys. You want democracy? We'll dupe the US into 2. invading your country, and supplying 3. armaments, 4. nuclear weaponry, 5. columns of US military, 6. fleets of US war ships, 7. trillions of US tax dollars, 8. we'll supply as many roadside bombs as it takes (for the resistance)."
Frum is treyf?
Treyf by me...and not kosher either. LOL
So where exactly does that put the "neocons" in regard to the "revolutions" going on in Libya, Syria, and Egypt in the "Arab spring"? Do they favor the established dictatorships or do the favor the insurgents (aligned with radical Islamist groups)?
I have never heard a bunch of neocons get into this subject. Come to think of it, the term "neocon" isn't often used since the early Bush Administration.
As for Frum wanting to get into a US government job, I wouldn't put it past him to join the Obama administration, but he seems to have enough jerks in the MSM kissing his rear for him to make a living as a writer (although his books haven't sold well) and a media pundit. I believe he also has some sinecure at a think tank in DC.
Man you're smart, JS. You might consider collecting the reward posted for anyone who can determine what Frum, David Brooks, Billy Kristol, and the rest of the pukes actually do for a living.
None of the pukes have any visible means of support, unless you count:
(1) media prostitution,
(2) editing stupid magazines subsidized by offshore wire transfers,
(3) infiltrating the US government,
(4) endless think-tank pontificating on the benefits if goading the US into invading Mideast countries of the pukes choosing,
(5) cheer-leading amnesty, National Greatness, America as Empire, Endless War, and John McCain,
(6) squatting in the Repub Party, hoping to destroy it from within,
(7) religious cleansing of the Repub Party, and,
(8) kicking so/con Repubs to the curb.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Pinch Me, Am I Dreaming?
by Mona Charen (revolving door conservative)
Superstition almost forbids me to comment on President-elect Obama's appointments thus far. The news has been so shockingly welcome that I'm almost afraid to remark on it for fear of breaking the spell. Such reticence has not afflicted everyone on the right, though.
Did you notice that in introducing his choices, the President-elect used the term "defeat our enemies"?
Max Boot, conservative editorialist, author, and military historian: "I am gobsmacked by these appointments, most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain......(the neocon's choice) " NYT columnist (and neocon) David Brooks acknowledged that he is "tremendously impressed."
Obama's economic team of Lawrence Summers, Timothy Geithner, and Christina Romer does not exactly send a "to the ramparts" message.
Summers (now gone), treasury secretary under Bill Clinton, is known for his belief in free financial markets, free trade, and fiscal discipline. He got into terrific trouble as president of Harvard for implying that, on average, men are more mathematically talented than women (which is true but that is irrelevant in the Ivy League).
Geithner is a Summers protege (wants to leave the admin). As president of the NY Federal Reserve Bank, he has been knee-deep in bailouts over the past three months. But that datum doesn't distinguish him from the Bush administration or anyone else in the mainstream of America's economic elite.
Romer (now back in academia) recently penned an article making the case that tax cuts can increase economic activity. Hmmm. If the economic team is centrist, the foreign policy team (and I pinch myself as I say this) leans a little to the right.
Gen. James Jones, Obama's choice for national security adviser, is a four-star Marine general who was commandant of the Marine Corps and Supreme Allied Commander for Europe (SACEUR), among other posts. Response to his nomination among conservatives ranged from cautious optimism to outright enthusiasm. "He is a thoroughly decent man" one conservative foreign policy analyst told me.
Though his political views are not known, he has received the "Keeper of the Flame" award from the hard-line Center for Security Policy. The Foundation for the Defense of Democracy's (and National Review's) Michael Ledeen, no coddler of wimps, calls him "almost unbearably delightful" in the two or three conversations they've had. Everyone seems to agree that he has high intelligence and deep patriotism. If there is a hesitation, it arises from the fact that he is, like Colin Powell and Brent Scowcroft, a political general, and those have not always worked out so well.
As for Hillary Clinton, well, she is no Jeane Kirkpatrick. While it's true that she declined to apologize for her vote in favor of the Iraq war, she did everything but. It was only last year that she told Gen. Petraeus that his report on progress in Iraq "require(ed) a willing suspension of disbelief." She opposed the surge of troops in Iraq but then -- this is chutzpah! -- attempted to take credit for its success.
On Meet the Press in January 2008 she said "...The point of the surge was to quickly move the Iraqi government and Iraqi people. That is only now beginning to happen, and I believe in large measure because the Iraqi government, they watch us, they listen to us. I know very well that they follow everything that I say. And my commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009 is a big factor, as it is with Sen. Obama, Sen. Edwards, those of us on the Democratic side. It is a big factor in pushing the Iraqi government to finally do what they should have been doing all along."
She has criticized what she calls the Bush administration's "obsessive" focus on "expensive and unproven missile defense technology." On trade, she has made protectionist noises.
On the other hand, she is not Carl Levin or Dennis Kucinich or Anthony Lake or Samantha Power. And that, along with the other appointments, is enough to keep some of us smiling at a time when we were expecting to be in deep anguish. ####
Pinch Me, Am I Dreaming?That column would gag a maggot.
by Mona Charen, Tuesday, December 02, 2008
As to the rest of the neo-pukes. I will never forget little Billy Kristol's jumping for joy comment about Barry O'DUmmie aiding the radicals with our military to achieve 'democracy':
'Obama Is A Born Again Neo-Con'Like that's supposed to be a good thing. Spare me Billy. What about Egypt and Mubarak? He may have been many things but three things he did were kind of important in my view:
That's some pretty weird 'democracy', Billy.
And that 'new democracy' screwed my plans to one day visit Egypt. I really want to see the Pyramids & Sphinx. And go up the Nile to the Temples at Luxor.
Thanks for that.
....... that 'new democracy' screwed my plans to visit Egypt. I really want to go up the Nile to the Temples at Luxor....
My friend's sister did that---sailed up the Nile to Luxor---memorable.
Pukeneos are as much an enemy to our country as the leftists. They pervert and destroy conservatism!
What I don't understand is that some prominent and generally more conservative media personalities are treating Obama's constitutional eligibility problem as the taboo of all taboos for discussion. Ann Coulter and Mark Levin are two that come to mind.
We at FR are all agreed that no-fault divorce has truly wrought devastation. However, we seem to be in the minority.
The average person might rue the problems associated with no-fault divorce, but they certainly don't want to eliminate it. They still want to have that escape hatch for themselves, even though it has become a trap door for our entire culture.
So what if gay marriage wreaks even more havoc ten or twenty years hence? Do you think that the US voters will then vote to prohibit it? Would they go so far as to nullify all existing gay marriages?
Obviously not. There are so many things that we as a nation tolerate despite the side-effects. I am afraid that gay marriage will ultimately become the law of the land, and no matter how bad or how extensive the side-effects it will remain the law of the land until the US is no longer.
Isn't that the name of a gay country-western duo?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.