Posted on 10/21/2007 10:09:49 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
I, a conservative Christian, am partly responsible for passing one of the most pro-gay agendas in American history.
Starting January 1, 2008, California will implement SB-777, a bill that goes far beyond the old standard of public schools not being able to do anything that would “reflect adversely” on homosexuality. Now, the new standard is you can’t do anything that would show either a “discriminatory bias” against homosexuality or anything that would favor heterosexuality.
Let me put this in simple terms.
Textbooks that now refer to “mother and father” or “mom and dad” or “King and Queen” will soon have to also include—with equal emphasis—“mom and mom,” “dad and dad” and “king and king.” There shall be no preference of any kind shown to heterosexuality. Kids, K-12, will learn that every form of family is just as “normal” as every other form. The textbooks that comply will no longer elevate as the ideal that children have both a loving mom and a loving dad, all they’ll need is “a nurturing caregiver”—or maybe a village. They’ll be taught “male” and “female” are mere social constructs that have nothing to do with sexuality or “plumbing.” Increasingly, children will be encouraged to explore their own “gender,” which means they’ll be encouraged to experiment with all forms of sexuality since nothing is “abnormal.” We’ll throw them condoms, pass out Plan B in the health center, and even put 6th grade middle school girls on the pill to ensure that we make sex “safe.” And when some get pregnant, and others get the inevitable diseases, we’ll just take them for an abortion or for treatments under HillaryCare—all during school hours, and all without their parents having a clue.
All this will happen because I—like millions of other conservative Christians in California—voted for Arnold. I voted for the Republican Arnold in order to avoid the Democrat Bustamante—but ended up getting quite of bit of Bustamante anyway. I’m not mad at Arnold, really. He told us who he was and what he believed in, and we were just glad we could vote for a candidate that had a real shot at “winning,” who could “stop Bustamante.”
Sound familiar? Now we’re told again that we have to vote for a candidate that can “win,” because we have to “stop Hillary.”
Consider this.
How many people do you know who still proudly call themselves “Republicans?” I know of increasingly few. There was a time when I was so proud of being part of the GOP. That was before all the scandals, the earmarks and the spending of “Compassionate Conservatism,” before the massive Prescription Drug Benefit and McCain-Feingold, the failure of Social Security reform, the poor communication that still continues regarding the War on Terror, the amnesty of Comprehensive Immigration Reform and the Harriet Miers Moment. I could go on.
It’s like we’ve been watching “How to Destroy a Great Party in Two Administrations.”
And now we have Arnold the Republican signing the most pro-gay agenda in our state’s history and Rudy the Republican who’s supporting abortion on demand, civil unions and gun control.
It’s déjà vu all over again: Beware of an Arnold dressed as a Rudy.
I may no longer be an enthusiastic Republican, but I am a proud conservative who’s angry at the political party that has moved away from me. I haven’t changed these past several years, they have.
In 2008, for a Republican to win, he must have the enthusiastic support of conservative Christians who will raise money, walk precincts, and get out the vote. But the reasons most Christians support the Republican Party are primarily moral, not economic nor even out of national security concerns. If Republicans lose their opposition to abortion and gay marriage they’ll lose much of the Christian vote. Sure, some will vote for the “lesser of two evils,” but it won’t be enough to win the election.
I just don’t see how Rudy can beat Hillary without a big Christian turnout—and he won’t get it.
In the end, if Republicans are foolish enough to nominate Rudy, I doubt many conservative Christians will make the mistake we did in California.
When I look at Rudy, all I see is Arnold.
The Frank Pastore Show is heard in Los Angeles weekday afternoons on 99.5 KKLA and on the web at kkla.com, and is the winner of the 2006 National Religious Broadcasters Talk Show of the Year. Frank is a former major league pitcher with graduate degrees in both philosophy of religion and political philosophy.
” All of you social Conservatives, don’t bite off your nose to spite your face. Vote for the GOP nominee, period.”
I will not vote for anyone who supports abortion. It is the most horrible crime imaginable. Would you ask me to vote for someone who supports a constitutional right to molest children? No? But you WOULD ask me to vote for someone who supports a constitutional right to murder them? Do you see how sick that is? There are some crazy ideas coming out of these forums lately.
Its a serious charge being compared to one of the most anti-conservatives ever to post on this forum.
Think about it.
Would Christians rather allow the election of a wealth-redistributing, anti-military, Electoral College-abolishing, socialized medicine espousing communist over a socially liberal capitalist?
Apparently.
Vote for Fred Thompson!
They want us to stay home. That’s why we are getting mediocre candidates; except for Duncan Hunter and they are pushing Hillary. When in fact Hillary is the least suitable candidate.
Don’t be surprised if Hunter or Tancredo go to the top. The conservatives are tired of being pushed around by their party; the libs and just about everyone else. We will elect our own President. Not some goofy RINO.
I agree. It would be better if hillary were elected than Rudy.
As I said, I would not vote for her, but I believe it would be better for the country in the long run, because at least it would preserve our two party system.
I also tend to agree with you that, with luck, she would only have two years to do her damage, before the Republicans took back congress. And hopefully only one term in office.
The woman has only managed to stay remotely popular by keeping mostly out of sight and letting the media shill for her. Every time she comes to the front of the stage, she has screwed up and shown what she really is. Unlike her smooth-talking husband, she is a very poor liar. She only survives by staying in the background and letting others spin for her.
It will be impossible for any amnesty proposal passed in either 2009 or 2010 to produce votes in 2010. I'd sure like to see the Rats try such a naked power grab, it would backfire on them spectacularly.
If Hillary does win under any circumstances (Giuliani nomination, or third-party drawoff), she will win with a lot of votes from people marking ballots with great trepidation. She will have a very short honeymoon in the minds of most of the electorate, and swiftly moving to consolidate her power will send the mushy middle over to our side in droves. That's how we took power in 1994.
Our party and the libs want us to lose; so they can become elitists. They want us to be slaves or atleast shutdown.
Don’t buy it. We will elect our own President and it won’t be one of those silly Rinos they keep pushing on us.
I pray that these men will find the wherewithal to remain in the race for the influence they can have on the Party for the right. I also pray that the ilite-empowered men at the top will somehow find it in the best interests of the Nation to use these men in important posts if they are elected.
We are being drug through the left-wing swamps by those who stamp their approval on the current 39%’ers and 22 %’ers.
I agree! And they are the ticked to make sure this nation continues it’s slide into the hold of liberalism..rather than standing firmly against it (and for what made this nation great!).
Sure it would! The United States has been patiently waiting for 237 years for a Communist Commander-In-Chief!
I not JUST a “Social Conservative”: I am more appropriate a Traditonalis, Smaller Government, and Ronald W. Reagan Conservative. The republican party is a tool; they own their power to ME, not the other-way around. They can shove it..when they nominate Rudy, or McCain or even Gov. ~Romney~ P!
DUNCAN HUNTER in '08
Give me a stout hearted man. : )
Arnold fooled people, including Sean Hannity, and now Rudy is fooling many people, including Sean Hannity.
A :LIBERAL, gay rights crusader like Rudy would be a disaster to the Republican Party is SOOOOOOOOOO many ways!!
The rats will find a way to allow millions of new voters. In addition, the vote buying schemes will put conservatives on the defensive. SHE has many negatives but the rats have huge advantages now. Initially, I think the vote buying schemes will make HER even more popular. Entitlement programs can never be cut. The fruits of some of the schemes (especially energy mandates) will not bear their bitter fruit for 5 to 10 years.
I wish that I could be more optimistic about the rats grip on control if conservatives implode in 2008. I do not think that we should be using 1994 as a model for taking back control.
Once she captures the Rat nomination (an Iowa win would guarantee it) the media will completly focus on her. Her voice (we don't call her 'Shrillary' for nothing!) will grate on people, and even if they dislike our candidate more, her support will be only an inch deep.
If we make the mistake of nominating Giuliani, then we can spend our time, money and effort on getting a Republican Congress to keep her in check, and if we have anybody acceptable to the social conservatives, then we can count on her inherent nastiness to help win the election for us.
And another thing..............
Many of us are disappointed with President Bush on borders, but many didn’t know Bush’s history.
Well we DO know Rudy’s history, and we need to remember it when we vote in the PRIMARIES.
“Immigration politics have similarly harmed New York. Former mayor Rudolph Giuliani sued all the way up to the Supreme Court to defend the city’s sanctuary policy against a 1996 federal law decreeing that cities could not prohibit their employees from cooperating with the INS.
Oh yeah? said Giuliani; just watch me. The INS, he claimed, with what turned out to be grotesque irony, only aims to “terrorize people.” Though he lost in court, he remained defiant to the end. On September 5, 2001, his handpicked charter-revision committee ruled that New York could still require that its employees keep immigration information confidential to preserve trust between immigrants and government. Six days later, several visa-overstayers participated in the most devastating attack on the city and the country in history.”
excerpted from: http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html
If you can't raise enough cash to fund your candidacy, your campaign is doomed. Simple as that. I waited for months to see if Tancredo or Hunter could make some headway and advance their support among the field of candidates. No dice. Its just not gonna happen.
Support levels for ALL the GOP candidates has remained pretty consistent during the last year. Giuliani has been the front runner during that time. However, his support began to drop-off significantly, once Fred Thompson began to broadcast his intentions at a possible run for POTUS. Fred`s a reliable conservative and the most viable conservative running in the GOP field today. I think informed conservatives have reacted positively to Fred`s overall effort.
If you want to disagree with that assessment, show me some proof to back it up. Otherwise, its nothing but cheap talk.
Since August 2006, I've made every effort to expose the liberal record of Rudy Giuliani. Along with other FReepers, that effort remains a work in progress. Its been the the #1 objective of this forum for most of 2007, to see that Rooty is knocked out of the primary race. He must never become the GOP nominee. So far, that hasn't happened. The longer conservatives remain split, the tougher and more difficult it becomes to take down Rooty.
If other FReepers want to join the fight to beat Rooty, I suggest you get onboard Fred`s campaign. If you think Romney or McCain can beat Rooty, good luck. If you think some second tier candidate with no money is gonna suddenly jump to the top of the heap, you're not being realistic.
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.