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.
This is exactly why I don’t trust Rudy or Romney....or McCain for that matter. RINOs will always sell you out once in office. Of the trio I trust Mitt the least because of his record.
Ping around, if you wish.
America is in deep trouble.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Do liberals usually crap on America?
No abortionists, no gun grabbers, no gay activists and no liberals... PERIOD! ... no Rooty, no Romney and no McCain!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
FReepers calcowgirl, NormsRevenge, SierraWasp, and the other CA FReepers were warning about this during the Gray Davis recall. But noooo. RINO apologists like FairOpinion said it was better to vote for the R and sing kumbaya.
I don’t like Rudy either, but if he is the Republican candidate running against Hillary then I will vote for him. I will vote for almost anyone running against the witch.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
If we're going to send the country to hell, I'll take the express, thank you.
Well, this is pretty much what I’ve been saying all along.
If Rudy wins the primary, then you can say goodbye to the Republican Party. Because he will kill it.
I’m not going to vote for hillary. My conscience forbids it. But I’m also not going to vote for Rudy, because my conscience forbids that. And tens of millions of Christian conservatives and pro-lifers will feel the same way. Count on it.
The obvious solution to this dilemma is not to nominate Rudy. Because if he is nominated, the party will not survive, and the conservative coalition will have to start all over again from scratch.
The primary race is between Rooty and Fred. I like conservative Fred and I like his chances. I know who you support. Liberal RINO Rooty. Stop pretending, you're no conservative.
What if the Witch was running as a Republican?.
As a Californian, I have seen the decay of my party. It has happened with a thousand cuts of trading principles for expediency, and the utter elitism of our leadership which ignores and subverts our most basic values — from the security of our borders to sticking to the basics in education. And don’t get me started on taxes.
The author is right about the importance of learning from the cautionary tale of California. Ignore it at your peril, America. RINOs are the death of the party, and of the country. Don’t give in!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Since you’re no conservative, I’ll just ignore your rhetorical bunkum.
No Giuliani - no problem.
1. Don’t blame me. I voted for Tom McClintock (when he ran against Bustamante and Arnie)
2. I prefer Mitt. For you social conservatives (I’m an economic Conservative) Mitt is against gay marriage and abortion.
3. However, should Mitt not be the nominee, I WILL definitely, positively vote for Rudy, Fred or heck, even McCain or Huckabee. Any of them are far better than the alternative.
4. All of you social Conservatives, don’t bite off your nose to spite your face. Vote for the GOP nominee, period.
There's only one way: absolute crushing defeat that tells the Party leaders that the way to beat Hillary is not to be Hillary-lite. Upon Giuliani's nomination, my strategy shifts to "since she's gonna be elected, let's keep her in check." I will remind liberal-leaning people around me that the best years of the previous Clinton administration were not 93 and 94 (when Hillary tried to take over health care singlehandedly) but from 1995-2000, when the Republicans had completely taken over Congress.
The libs will freak out that she doesn't withdraw from Iraq in her first hundred days, and then she will have lost them, too. I'd rather have a defanged Hillary than to see the spectacle of Rudy begging Republicans to vote for stuff that he's already got the Rats on board with. You think we had it bad while GWB was trying to shove shamnesty down our throats? Four long years of a Rudy presidency would be like that on a daily basis. The Republican Party would rip itself to shreds.
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.