Posted on 02/24/2013 7:51:02 PM PST by Olog-hai
The Tories’ biggest donor has stopped funding the party after privately questioning whether the Prime Minister is still a proper Conservative.
Lord Ashcroft, who has given the Tories £10 million ($15 million), has withdrawn support after becoming dismayed with David Cameron’s obsession with “fringe issues” such as gay marriage.
The Tory peer also told friends he has given enough money and is not hopeful of the party winning a majority in 2015. …
In another blow to Cameron, his local Chipping Norton party chairman, Cicely Maunder, quit her post and tore up her party membership over his promotion of gay marriage. …
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Now if only the same thing would happen to the GOP; then they’d start listening to their base again, eh.I’M still a Tory… but I wonder if Cameron is: Top donor Ashcroft drops his support for the party over PM’s gay marriage “obsession”
I’ve read that Cameron backed down from a pledge to reduce immigration too.
So it sounds like he is about as worthless a Bush.
Yeah, that may be true. And therefore on that point I was unfair to Bush.
Then again, Bush was largely responsible for getting Obama elected, and Obama has already put 2 pro-gay marriage votes on the Sup Court. And with Roberts, Bush may have put the vote on the Sup Court that ends up imposing gay marriage on the entire country.
But Bush was pro-traditional marriage so I’ll give him credit for that. But Bush was (like his whole family) worthless on immigration. After 9-11, he could have rallied the country around a conservative, restrictive reform of immigration. But being a liberal on immigration, Bush didn’t do that. And mass immigration-driven demographic changes will likely doom any conservative movement, and make things like national recognition of gay marriage inevitable. So while Bush did take a lot of unfair and savage criticism from the left and the media, he was on their side on the one issue that may end up deciding all other issues.
It may be unfair though to compare him to Cameron. If Cameron were American he’d probably be a Democrat, or at least a Huntsman type of Republican.
At a State Department ceremony this week [2006], Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warmly acknowledged the family members of Mark Dybul, whom she was swearing in as the nation's new global AIDS coordinator.
As first lady Laura Bush looked on, Rice singled out his partner, Jason Claire, and Claire's mother. Rice referred to her as Dybul's mother-in-law.
Most of those British lords are tutti-fruities.
damn poofters!!!
Hotel investigated over ‘poofters welcome’ sign - Telegraph
www.telegraph.co.uk › News › UK NewsFeb 11, 2011 – Police investigated a village hotel owner for erecting a “Poofters welcome here” sign, in reference to a recent court ruling that B&Bs are obliged ...
Homosexual marriage law is designed to persecute those that refuse to support and service homosexual behavior. This is a reality far from the quaint perception one might have of “gay marriage”.
Hotel owner sparks anger by putting up provocative sign declaring ‘Poofters welcome’
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
UPDATED: 07:43 EST, 12 February 2011
Comments (120)
Share
A hotel owner has caused uproar in his village after putting up a sign outside the building saying ‘Poofters welcome here’.
Mike Saqui meant the sign to be a pointed reference to the case where a Cornish B&B owner refused to let in gay couples.
But many in his village in Hampshire’s New Forest were left outraged and he was given a strong talking to by the police.
Mr Saqui wrote the message on the sandwich board outside his Penny Farthing Hotel, on a main road in Hampshire’s New Forest.
Wow. England’s faggots are taking a beating. Hope they don’t come here to the friendlier shores of Ubama’s country, the former “America”.
Good. Maybe he can donate to the real conservatives across the ocean, who are still fighting for principles. We’re the last line of defense against the social Marxist hordes, and we have to overthrow Rove and his lackeys.
(Also, hat tip to the woman who ripped up her party membership. Way to stand up for your values!)
Cameron holds the same positions as Obama. He’s a socialist rat, a puppet member of the left, just like Sarkozy and Samaras.
OMG!! Laura Bush IS a DEMOCRAT!! Nice STUPID woman.
That just proves Condoleezza Rice is a RINO. Rice’s views aren’t the same as Bush on social issues — she’s also pro-abortion, praised Obama’s election, etc. Why so many otherwise conservative freepers fawn over her and think she’s Presidential material is beyond me. She was a huge disappointment as Secretary of State and proved to be little more than Colin Powell in a skirt.
President Bush, Oct 2004:
“I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so,” the president said, just days before Election Day. “(S)tates ought to be able to have the right to pass … laws that enable people to, you know, be able to have rights, like others.”
President Bush, Nov 2004:
In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year.
In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California Family Code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California.
A county in New Mexico has also issued marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender.
And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty.
After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization.
Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity. On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse.
If we’re to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.
The Constitution says that “full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state.”
Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America.
Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act by declaring that no state must accept another state’s definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress.
Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not itself be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage.
Furthermore, even if the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld, the law does not protect marriage within any state or city.
For all these reasons, the defense of marriage requires a constitutional amendment.
An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly. The amendment process has addressed many serious matters of national concern, and the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance.
The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society.
Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society.
Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.
You see any statement like that from David Cameron or Condoleezza Rice? No. Seems to me they’re saying the opposite.
In 2004, Pres. Bush took all sides of the issue. Pro-civil unions but anti-gay marriage...all double talk.
Rice did her swearing in 2006. She was representing her boss, President Bush, and the First Lady was standing right there. Bush said a lot of stuff but actions speak louder than words.
If you still want to believe Pres. Bush was a standup guy, then you will.
If you still want to believe Pres. Bush was like David Cameron on gay marriage, then you will. Cameron eagerly FORCING gay marriage on the UK (without even allowing religious exemptions) was appalling. It took a lot of guts for Bush to do what he did when the liberal media was screaming about it and his Vice President had surrendered to the left on this issue.
I never said that. I said Bush let the ladies do the dirty work for him.
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.